Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
As we all know—those of us who have followed these matters—the 1933 Act, usefully amended by the 1986 Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act introduced by my admirable hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), has failed in its attempt to restrain sales of tobacco to children. The reason is very simple—the legislation has not been enforced. The most crucial feature of my Bill is that it confronts and seeks to deal with the problem of inadequate enforcement of the law.
Let me begin with the background to this measure. There can be no doubt that tobacco represents a major threat to the health and well-being of our nation. In his latest report on the state of the nation's health, the chief medical officer said that cigarette smoking continued to be
by far the most significant single cause of ill health and premature death, and hence of expenditure on health services.
It follows that any steps that we can take to reduce cigarette smoking will contribute both to better health throughout the nation and—a very important factor—to reduced public expenditure.
The World Health Organisation stated in 1986 that it had recorded

some 50,000 studies of all kinds carried out throughout the world that have irrefutably established the link between tobacco and disease.
There have been four reports on smoking and health, published by the Royal College of Physicians, since 1962. Taken together, they represent a definitive indictment of smoking as a cause of death and disease. The last of those reports, in 1983, stated
the Royal College of Physicians would be failing in its duty if it did not urge the government to tackle this hidden holocaust with the urgency once given to cholera, diphtheria, poliomyelitis and tuberculosis.
At least 110,000 people die prematurely each year in the United Kingdom from smoking-related diseases. At the heart of the problem of control has been the issue of personal freedom. It has been said that it is the duty of the state to educate people about the dangers of smoking, rather than strictly to forbid it. Well, whether or not one accepts that emphasis on personal freedom rather than on preventive health care, it surely cannot apply to children. That is why as early as 1933 in England—and a little later, 1937, in Scotland, my country—it was made illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16.
Children who smoke are adversely affected in three ways. First, their life expectancy is reduced. One in four cigarette users will die prematurely as a result of smoking, and they will do so up to 18 years earlier than non-smokers. Thirdly, they develop an addiction that can afflict them, both in terms of health and, perhaps less important, financially.
Recently, there has been disturbing evidence from the Health Education Authority that there is a powerful interaction between smoking and experimentation with drugs. The study of 10,000 children between nine and 15-years-old showed that 57 per cent. of regular smokers report that they have been offered drugs compared with only 6 per cent. of non-smokers. If we are to stop this lengthy catalogue of statistics of death and disease, we simply have to be more determined to help to prevent children from starting to smoke. Seventy-five per cent. of adult smokers pick up the habit before they are 18 years old. They become addicted at a time when they should have been protected. By the age of 15, 17 per cent. of boys and 23 per cent. of girls are smoking regularly—more than one in five of the nation's 15-year-olds. In England alone, 300,000 children between 11 and 15 are regular smokers, and a further 180,000 are occasional smokers.
The hopes of all concerned with children and health, especially parents, that the 1986 legislation would protect children have been proved sadly mistaken. Why is this? Well, I have to be utterly blunt about this. It is because a cynical and ruthless industry—the manufacturers of this product, the people who continue to make and market it, despite the overwhelming evidence of the death and disease that it causes—continue to promote it in such a way that it attracts children and younger people. They do this in defiance of agreements and despite claims to the contrary. Of course, they would be the first to say that they wish that retailers did not sell cigarettes to children. Then they claim to spend £1 million a year to publicise the law. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Children spend £90 million a year on smoking. The £1 million that the industry spends on its so-called campaign to promote the law forbidding the sale of cigarettes to children under 16 is only 1 per cent. of the £100 million a year that it spends on the promotion of tobacco products, and most of this is seen by children. The industry happily pockets the


£90 million a year that it achieves from these illegal sales. There is no evidence of it offering to return the profits on those sales, perhaps as a contribution to the Health Education Authority. The poster that it distributes to retail outlets is pathetically small compared with the point-of-sales promotion of tobacco products. To walk into a corner shop these days is often the equivalent of walking into a packet of cigarettes. Such is the advertising all around and over the shop. The minority of retailers who display the warning sign show a tiny poster that simply is ineffective in comparison with competing promotional material. This poster and this expenditure by the industry are gestures to public concern. They are not intended to be effective.
Let us get the point clear. This industry has a vested interest in children and smoking, a vested interest in encouraging a new generation of smokers. Sadly, it is aided by the retailers. As hon. Members, I think, will be aware, my Bill was initially drafted and has been promoted by the widely praised Parents Against Tobacco compaign—an admirable campaign. Parents Against Tobacco, supported by a wide range of highly respected organisations and whose funding in the first year came, in addition to parents themselves—a very important component—from the Health Education Authority, the EEC's Europe Against Cancer fund and also the Healthcare Foundation, undertook extensive research and co-ordinated research undertaken by local authorities and others into retailers' behaviour.
Now what did it establish? First, surveys of 418 shops showed that more than one in two—224 in all—sold to children under 16. Subsequent surveys by local authorities all over the country reinforce these findings. Some tests showed a very high level of law breaking. Last week, for instance, a headmaster in Camberley, Surrey, found that 11 out of 14 shops sold to pupils aged 14. Approximately half the shops that sell cigarettes in Britian will sell to children under 16 in defiance of the law.

Mr. David Martin: Has the hon. Gentleman any comparative figures that show whether the position is getting worse among children over the years? It is probably within the knowledge of most of us that adults are less inclined to smoke these days than hitherto. Perhaps this is something that the hon. Gentleman will address.

Mr. Faulds: Yes. I cannot at the moment give the figures. Undoubtedly it is a fact that adults, sensibly, are smoking less. But the evidence would appear to be that children are smoking more, and that implies appalling damage to an increasing number of our population.
The answer, partly, why this has happened—the retailers' position—is the cynicism of those who sell to children and whose behaviour really must be condemned. But if the law falls into disrepute, it is just as likely to be because of the way it is enforced, and that is the case in this respect. A unique survey by Parents Against Tobacco of local authorities all over the country showed that virtually none was surveying the behaviour of retailers or undertaking prosecutions. Of the 110 local authorities which responded to the survey, 104 had prosecuted no one in the three years since the 1986 Act was passed. Many claimed that it was not their responsibility and that the

police should enforce the law, but a separate survey of chief constables revealed that some of them believed that it was the local authorities that should act, and none of them felt that they could undertake enforcement of this law given their other responsibilities. Very simply, the law is not being enforced.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I agree that the current law is not being enforced. Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that his modifications will lead to a satisfactory implementation of the law? Proposed section (1G) provides that the local authority that is satisfied 
that any person has failed to comply with …provisions" 
shall "bring proceedings", but goes on to state that it may recommend the taking of other steps. Therefore, we may have a containment of the abuse even if the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Faulds: I think that these are fine points that we shall get around to discussing in Committee. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As the House knows, I am the most accommodating and reasonable man. In Committee, I am sure that we shall come to a happy resolution of most of these points and queries.
Parents Against Tobacco launched the campaign to persuade councils to act voluntarily. To their credit, more than 320 passed resolutions supporting the campaign of Parents Against Tobacco, and indeed some instructed their officials to act. As a result of that we should find that the number of prosecutions taken in 1990 increases slightly, as it should. That is because in 1988 there were only 29 prosecutions and 26 convictions, despite evidence that many thousands of shops were breaking the law on a daily basis.
I have to really be blunt about this. In our discussions prior to today's debate, the Minister has not been able to commit himself to support laying a duty on local authorities to undertake surveys of retailer practice and to enforce the law.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Shame.

Mr. Faulds: Shame indeed.
Unless we take such action to achieve enforcement of the law, no other step that we take to protect children from smoking can possibly be effective. If children find, as they have done, that they can walk into their local shop, garage or supermarket and just simply buy cigarettes, why should they believe that the authorities, the industry supposedly, the public or even their own parents really want to protect them from smoking?
If the Minister specifically opposes that aspect of my Bill, he will effectively be telling local authorities that it is his view that enforcement of this law is not a high priority. How can he do that when the chief medical officer of health says that smoking is by far the most important single cause of ill health and premature death?
I have made it clear in discussions with the Minister's colleagues that I do not seek to impose onerous burdens on local authorities. It is not my intention to require every authority to survey every tobacco-retailing premises every year, nor that they should respond to every complaint in such a way that a prosecution would always result. But the public have made clear their support for firm action. A MORI opinion poll posed the question:
It is now against the law for shops to sell cigarettes to children under 16. Do you believe this law should or should not be strictly enforced?


No less than 95 per cent.—an overwhelming figure—replied that it should be strictly enforced. The Retail Consortium representing more than 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total retail trade, including supermarkets, off-licences, and the Multiple Newsagents Association, have welcomed my proposals to tighten statutory controls.
All the evidence shows that while there are, of course, some variations, the law is being broken across the country as a whole. Despite the positive action taken by some local authorities far too many others have failed to respond. This is a national problem requiring a firm national lead. While the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister—she usually gave a pretty firm lead, but not always the right lead of course—she wrote to Parents Against Tobacco to say:
I welcome this campaign and I fully support its fundamental aims
Perhaps the Minister should have those words up on his office wall.

Mr. Bob Cryer: He does not need to any longer.

Mr. Faulds: I still think there is some residual fear of the iron lady about the place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Gentleman will have noted from the words that he read out that my right hon. Friend, the former Prime Minister, supported the "fundamental aims"; she did not commit herself to every clause of the Bill as it presently stands.

Mr. Faulds: I did emphasise the word fundamental in my skilled way because I thought that the Minister should take that point. It is fundamental that we should save the lives of children by preventing them from getting cigarettes before the age of 16.
The Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—he is not here now—added his voice in support, as did other Cabinet Ministers. In February the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who will today speak for the Government, stated—perhaps he should hang this on his wall as well—
Selling cigarettes to those who are under age shows a deeply irresponsible disregard for the law, for the best interests of the retail trade and for the health of young people.
That was a very good quote and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some notice of his own past words. He also stated that although it was the Government's intention at some future date to introduce further legislation, if, in the meantime, a private Member came up with a Bill, the Government
would not be a dog in the manger and give it other than their support"—[Official Report, 14 February 1990, Vol. 167, c. 371–74.]
The repeated assurances that the Government care deeply about the number of children who smoke will be without meaning if they do not wholeheartedly support a measure intended to ensure that the law is enforced. Equally, claims to be committed to the rule of law will sound hollow if the Government are ready to stand by and see the law flouted to the extent that it has been on this issue.
Enforcement is the most critical step, but once prosecutions are undertaken it is of equal importance that those who cynically sell to children are properly punished.

My Bill would increase the penalties for the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 16 so that the maximum fine for an offence would become £2,000. That is in line with the maximum for other trading offences.
Of course a problem does arise. If we are effective in reducing the illegal sale of cigarettes to children in shops, children will instead go and purchase them from vending machines. Although I accept that the problems of sales from vending machines is not a major problem today, I believe that it would become a loophole and thus a more serious problem later. To leave it untackled at this stage would be a serious irresponsibility. For this reason my Bill would also restrict such vending machines to those places where under-16s are not allowed to enter.
Eighty-nine per cent. of people told the MORI poll that they wanted a ban on vending machine sales to children, yet at present those machines can be found in amusement arcades, cinema foyers and other places of entertainment where children often go unaccompanied by adults. As the Bill is framed, vending machines could still be kept in licensed premises, offices and factories.
I come next to a problem that fills me with particular revulsion—it is those utterly unscrupulous shopkeepers, and there are far too many of them, whose cynicism is such that they will seek to make an even higher profit from children by breaking open packs of cigarettes and selling them singly to children who cannot afford the price of a whole packet. How cynical can retailers become?
It is argued that, because the law already forbids the sale of cigarettes to children under 16, it already forbids the sale of single cigarettes to children under 16 and that, therefore, there is no need for an additional clause in the Bill. But we must force retailers to stop and think before they break open packs of cigarettes. The most effective and simple way to do that is to make it a double offence—not only should it be illegal to sell cigarettes, but illegal to sell cigarettes individually.
The above measures will not stop children trying to buy cigarettes. They will not stop the most lawless, irresponsible and ruthless of retailers from breaking the law. But the proposed measures together would make a huge difference. Widespread publicity of prosecutions and the imposition of heavy fines will have a salutary effect. There is evidence that when local authorities have prosecuted and newspapers have reported their action, the sale of cigarettes to children under 16 has fallen in that area.
Let me deal briefly with the other features of my Bill. First, it is difficult to persuade children that they should not be allowed to buy cigarettes when they enter local shops that so flagrantly and prominently advertise them. Thus, my Bill will prohibit the advertising of tobacco or tobacco-sponsored events from retail premises. That will thus end in-store and shop window promotions of brand tobacco products. For the first time there will be a requirement for a warning to be published on packets of cigarettes stating:
It is illegal to sell tobacco to anyone under the age of 16.
The Bill would make it a legal requirement for retailers to display prominently details of the law restricting the sales to under-16s. Those last two points are of some importance because the many retailers who do wish to make a stand and reject the sale of cigarettes to children will be strengthened by being able to point out both the official notice and the reference on the packet itself.
Parents and children alike need to be reminded that the sale of cigarettes to children under 16 is illegal. Far too many retailers blithely disregard that. I have outlined the terms of the Bill and perhaps it is worth looking at the list of supporters of this measure. It is supported not only by a considerable number of Back Benchers from all parties, but by a lengthy list of well-known personalities from the arts, literature, sport, politics and the media. The list of supporting organisations includes the Royal Colleges of Physicians, General Practitioners, Psychiatrists and of Nursing, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Medical Association, the British Heart Foundation, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and Cancer Research Campaign, sports organisations, the Mothers Union, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Townswomen's Guild and so on. What an enormously impressive array of organisations that is. Everyone concerned with the well-being of children wishes the measures to be enacted and they will bitterly resent any attempt to obstruct them.
I must, before I finish, express my gratitude to the Minister and to his colleagues for the opportunity to discuss the Bill in advance of today's debate, which they willingly obliged me with. But the great problem for both the Government and the Opposition over the years has been fundamental hypocrisy about smoking. On the one hand, economic policy is partly based on the income that the state counts on from the sale of cigarettes. On the other hand, the state is so convinced that smoking is a menace to health, that it actually insists that a warning notice appears on the packet saying:
Smoking can cause fatal diseases.
Controls, as we all know, are imposed in other areas where people's well-being is in danger—for instance, heavy fines and enforcement of the law on the wearing of seat belts. But, despite all the right noises made about smoking, and in particular children smoking, we fall far short of the real action that is necessary.
The Minister has a choice. He can acknowledge that, and give this Bill wholehearted backing and, in particular, support proper enforcement of this law. This would incidentally restore people's faith in the genuineness of the Government's commitment on this issue. Or he can seek to do just enough not to appear to be completely demolishing the Bill, whilst at the same time ensuring that after it becomes the law of the land it is still not properly enforced and thus only minimally more effective than it was before.
Any hon. Member who wins first place in the ballot is extraordinarily lucky, although this particular Member has had to wait 25 years for that break. When I got that break and examined some of the possibilities of potential legislation that I could take up, this, I must say, was the one that most appealed to me. My wife has disagreed. She cares very much more about animals than she appears to do about cigarettes. But on this occasion, as very rarely happens, I overruled her and I adopted this Bill. I can think of no better thing that we could do for our children than to pass this law. I believe that this Bill deals very effectively with the existing problems in illegal sales to children. I know—we all know—it has wide public support, and I trust that the House will prove beyond doubt that it has the strongest parliamentary support as well.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Simply, but regrettably, this Bill is all about a simple subject—one in every two shopkeepers in this country turning a blind eye to the long-term damage to a child's health in the interests of short-term financial gain, and the potential of a customer for life, or should I say shortened life. However, it is easy to attack shopkeepers and I wonder whether we all play a large part in society's complacency. Have we been aware of the existing law and of the degree to which it has been ignored?
Shopkeepers are victims of their own human weakness, and if no one appears to keep a watchful eye upon them, or to enforce the law—whether the local authority or the police—and they realise that they are likely to be prosecuted or convicted only on the rare occasion, can one blame them? In 1988 only 29 shopkeepers were prosecuted and 26 convicted. Shopkeepers realise that if that unlikely event ever happened to them, they risk a measly fine of, on average, £100, which they could earn in their shop the following day by selling more cigarettes. Is it any wonder that they totally ignore the law?
I suspect that we all have a large part to play in this matter. Shopkeepers break the law daily. Many years on, our complacency has resulted in a problem on a grand scale, which has to be tackled. Frankly, we have failed our children by not acting to protect their interests at an early age. As a result, 300,000 children are now hooked on nicotine by the age of 15. That is a public disgrace.
How can we justify ignoring those statistics? Half a million children under the age of 16 will try smoking this year. The first cigarette may be a bit of fun or accepted to look grown up. We have all been there. I remember visiting Denmark when I was 18 and thinking that young girls wandering around with little white clay pipes looked very chic. I thought it might be trendy to experiment with that and wondered whether I would look chic.
As a teacher many years ago when I was on playground duty on wet miserable lunch hours I saw the kids hiding behind the bicycle sheds, tempted to have a little drag and to influence their friends. It was all very macho. It also seemed rather harmless. As a secondary school teacher I took the attitude that children are devils and we cannot really turn a blind eye—although God help them if I found them behind the bicycle sheds, because of course we must discipline them. I am not sure whether that degree of responsibility continues to exist in our schools.
The trouble is that that harmless weakness, the desire for a bit of fun, leads to possible addiction. We are told that a child who smokes four cigarettes a day has a 90 per cent. chance of becoming a regular dependent smoker as an adult. Do those young people in their teens, or pre-teens —11 and 12-year-olds—have any real idea of the severity of dependence that will be induced by their actions at such an early age? As responsible adults, are we ensuring that they realise the dilemma in which they are placing themselves? I suspect not. Smoking does not merely cost young people their health, but costs them £90 million a year. What a horrendous figure.
I want to pay especial tribute, as my colleague did, to the Parents Against Tobacco campaign. The campaign is barely a year old but it has been successful in achieving a number one slot for private Members' Bills, thanks to the support of one of my colleagues in the west midlands, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I


congratulate him on his speech this morning. I am glad to say that his efforts and those of PAT have been backed by about 240 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. What the PAT campaign has achieved which the country has not, is a far greater awareness of the problem facing us. The campaign has heightened public awareness and made us realise that we need to ensure that local authorities enforce the existing law; that the Government consider carefully how best to police the situation; and that we implement a reasonable fine which would act as a deterrent to shopkeepers breaking the law. By prosecuting more shopkeepers and publicising prosecutions and convictions, I have no doubt that the news would spread, and as a result of the embarrassment to the shopkeeper in the local community the law would begin to police itself. Shopkeepers would see that we mean business and existing offenders—thousands of shopkeepers—would be deterred from taking the risk. That must be our aim. We want them to understand the risk that they take.
At the moment the law is an ass. There is no risk, as the law has no teeth. Why bother having a law at all if we are not going to use it? Hence, the campaign.

Sir Trevor Skeet: We have a good deal of Sunday trading legislation in the form of the Shops Act 1950. Local authorities are notorious for not implementing that legislation. Does my hon. Friend believe that local authorities throughout the United Kingdom will implement this Bill?

Mrs. Hicks: I think that my hon. Friend must be psychic: I was just coming to that point.
When we had those terrible snowstorms before Christmas, traders lost business and, to recoup that business, decided to open on Sundays. My constituents—and, perhaps, those of other hon. Members—became very hot under the collar. Where were the local authority enforcement officers? Why were they not prosecuting these dreadful people? Why were we not taking action?
I do not support Sunday trading; I believe that we should try to keep Sunday special. It is possible that in the future I may have to bow to public pressure, but at present I know where my loyalty lies, and I think that those shops were wrong to open on Sundays. Having said that, however, I find myself wondering about our sense of priorities. When did any of us last see a constituent jumping up and down with anger because shopkeepers were illegally selling cigarettes to children under 16? That is the irony: such shopkeepers are contributing to the likelihood of premature deaths, while those who open on Sundays are doing nothing worse then blatantly ignoring the law.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I strongly support both the Bill and what my hon. Friend has been saying. She has stressed the importance of deterring shopkeepers from selling cigarettes. Does she agree that one of the most important aspects of the problem mentioned in the Bill is the fact that shopkeepers are selling cigarettes singly? If the Bill is passed, that will become an offence. I feel that the most effective way of implementing the wishes of Parents Against Tobacco is to introduce measures combining deterrence of shopkeepers with the removal of temptation from children, and that the Bill would achieve that.

Mrs. Hicks: I entirely agree. The Bill has brought to our attention the extent to which single cigarettes are still being

sold; I do not think that people realise how often it happens, especially in areas where incomes tend to be low. When children cannot obtain the money that they want, of course they are tempted to go into shops and ask for single cigarettes. I think that it is terrible that a shopkeeper who may well be a parent himself should be content to open a packet of cigarettes and sell them individually to children.
Retailers who sell cigarettes illegally are actually responsible for driving the first nail into the coffin of a would-be adult who may become one of the 110,000 unfortunate people who die prematurely each year from smoking-related diseases. That is equivalent to the number of deaths that would result if a jumbo jet crashed every day of the week, killing everyone on board. I am not trying to over-dramatise the consequences of shopkeepers' lack of responsibility; I am merely stating the known fact that most people acquire the smoking habit in childhood. We must make them aware of the dangers.
The problem of adult smokers has already been mentioned. Another irony is the fact that, although adults —many of them parents—are being made increasingly aware of how unsociable smoking is, with the public demanding non-smoking areas in aeroplanes, cinemas and restaurants, children do not seem to recognise that the habit is becoming almost non-U. I am not condemning smokers; I should prefer people not to smoke, but I believe that they should be allowed to exercise the freedom to do so. I also believe, however, that they should try to prevent others from following suit.
When I first came to the House, I took part in a survey, as other hon. Members may also have done. We were asked how lobby groups could influence Members of Parliament and persuade them to adopt causes. I thought about that for a long time: what could such groups do to persuade me? All hon. Members receive huge amounts of bumf in their mailbags from people who are trying to influence them. I decided that I would be influenced most if the issue was relevant to my constituency.
When the PAT campaigners began lobbying Members, over a year ago, I stopped to ask myself why they had inspired my support, and realised that it was because I, as a parent, had a vested interest. Nothing is more likely to concentrate the mind on the dangers facing children than becoming a parent. I am privileged to be both a parent and a politician, with the ability to influence legislation and make it more enforceable. I suspect that we may hear today from one or two hon. Members who are not parents, and who may not share my sentiments. I may sound rather old-fashioned—I was rather a late starter as a parent—but it seems to me that young people today are being subjected to more and more temptations, wherever they turn.
I believe that it is the duty of the House and of all adults, whatever responsibilities they carry—whether they are teachers or shopkeepers, for instance—to do their best to protect children, especially the little kids under 15 who often know no better. People must not be content to turn a blind eye. We hear plenty about neighbourhood watch and business watch schemes to prevent the "nasties"; let us set up a community watch to protect our young people.
There have, of course, been incidents of drug-taking in my constituency—perhaps more than elsewhere, because it is an inner-city area. I am especially disturbed about glue-sniffing: it may sound pretty harmless, but what is the next stage? The Health Education Authority has uncovered alarming evidence of a powerful interaction between smoking and experimentation with drugs.
As a sponsor of the Bill, I sincerely hope that it will go into Committee with the backing of the House. It is important for hon. Members to examine the finer details, many of which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Warley, East, and decide how best to achieve its objectives. The complacency of local authorities must be recognised and dealt with: it is a disgrace that, of the 110 local authorities that responded to the PAT campaign, 104 had prosecuted no one since the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 was introduced by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
I am pleased to report that as a result of the campaign, 320 councils—including my own, Wolverhampton—have passed resolutions in support of the campaign and the need for action. However, actions speak louder than words. We want action. We have had the words. It is easy to pass resolutions, but now we need a commitment so that we can count on councils to take action. However, Parliament must give them the tools with which to enforce the law.
Great progress has been made. There is widespread support for the campaign among sportsmen, show-biz personalities and ordinary people. A MORI poll shows that 95 per cent. of people want Parliament to do something. The British Medical Association, the Retail Consortium and the Royal College of Psychiatrists want Parliament to do something. Moreover, there is cross-party support for the campaign. We must build on that support and make progress.
To do so, we must study the practical implications of the Bill. Some of its proposals will be difficult to enforce. They will, therefore, have to be considered carefully.

Mr. Michael Brown: That is the crux of the matter. Although all of us may accept the aims of the Bill, would my hon. Friend care to speculate on those provisions that will be difficult to enforce and the clauses on which hon. Members should concentrate when the Bill is considered in Committee?

Mrs. Hicks: I recognise that there are many difficulties to be overcome. We have already had many meetings with the Minister and I thank him for the support and the time that he has given to the campaign so far. I believe that the debate will be opened up in Committee. We shall have to consider how enforcement can best be policed and how best to ensure that local authority surveys are fully comprehensive. That will not be easy. If, however, we can demonstrate our will and commitment, we shall be at the beginning of an interesting process. The problem is that so far we have not elucidated who is responsible for enforcement. Responsibility has been passed from one to another. Local authorities say that it is for the police to take action; the police say that it is for the local authorities to take action. In Committee we must provide clear guidelines for the public. I hope that they will wish to help us to enforce them.
It has been suggested that vending machines should not be sited in areas where children can go without supervision —for example, cinema foyers and amusement arcades—but I wonder whether such a provision could be enforced. We shall need to consider in depth local authority

enforcement and the level of fines. We must ensure that it will be impossible for shopkeepers to open up packets of cigarettes and sell cigarettes individually to children.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that already it is illegal to open cigarette packets and sell cigarettes to young children?

Mrs. Hicks: My hon. Friend makes the point that I have tried to make throughout my speech. We know that that is illegal. The problem is how to devise ways of drawing to people's attention the fact that they must not break the law.

Mrs. Gorman: They must be made aware that it is illegal.

Mrs. Hicks: Precisely. Illegal acts take place every day of the week but everyone turns a blind eye to them. We have to ensure that the law is enforced.

Mr. Michael Stern: I agree with my hon. Friend that the law is not being enforced, but does she agree that there are two ways in which to make the law more enforceable? The Bill provides—I believe slightly impracticably, and if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall elaborate upon the point—that the penalty be increased, and that if that does not work the penalty be increased again, and then again. I do not favour such an approach. If the law is not being enforced, the alternative is to consider whether that law is enforceable and whether there should be a law covering the subject in the first place.

Mrs. Hicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I disagree with him about the effect of increasing the penalty. When the average fine is £100 there is no deterrent. I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider a proposal that the fine should be raised to at least £1,000, if not to £2,000, in line with those related to other trading laws.
We must establish how best to achieve our objective —to make it more difficult for children to obtain cigarettes. We must also consider carefully how to bring home to children the health dangers of smoking. They must be made aware of the fact that it is not a playful thing. We must also consider how best to publicise the fact that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to young children. It would also be worth while if signs were displayed in every shop reminding customers that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to young children. I am not sure how best we can monitor advertising so that the frightening statistics before us today can be reduced.
It would be a national disgrace if we abdicated our responsibilities. At present, 23 per cent. of all girls aged 15 smoke cigarettes and 17 per cent. of all boys aged 15 smoke cigarettes. It would be a national disgrace, as I say, faced with those statistics, if we sat back and did nothing.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I see that a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Unless speeches are briefer, some of them will be disappointed.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I introduced a Bill in the last Session of


Parliament, but it did not receive a Second Reading. I am also pleased that my local council, Bassetlaw, has pledged itself to taking the strongest action by means of its public health inspectors to enforce the Bill, if it becomes law.
I am particularly concerned about smoking because I represent a mining area. Many of the people who work in the pits suffer from lung problems such as pneumoconiosis. I attended a widows' tea at Shireoaks colliery; I found that one pit alone had led to 259 women becoming widows. Working down a pit can have frightening consequences. At one time, miners were very heavy smokers.
The Bill is important. It will help to prevent young people from acquiring the habit at an early age. Given all the information that is published by Parents Against Tobacco, it amazes me that it is not generally known that 110,000 people die every year from the effects of smoking. One in five of all 15-year-olds now smoke.
The tobacco industry is guilty of having set up a conveyor belt. At one end people drop off it; they give up smoking at a comparatively early age due to heart disease, lung cancer or other smoking-related problems. At the other end of the conveyor belt the tobacco companies push hard to make sure that young people get on to it so that their sales are maintained. There is strong evidence that the tobacco companies are expanding their activities in third world countries. They offer free film shows in countries such as India and Pakistan simply to push tobacco advertising and thereby enhance their sales.
When I was a kid my friends and I smoked. I remember coming home from school at the age of nine feeling very ill. My mother wanted to send for the doctor; then it dawned on her that I had been smoking, along with other lads, at the back of the bike shed. That cured me for a few years until boredom set in when I was doing my national service at the age of 18. I started to smoke again then.
It may not he a hard fact, but it is certainly common knowledge that the later in life a person starts to smoke the easier it is for him to quit. I conducted a little survey when I was working on my Bill with the Parents Against Tobacco campaign. I asked every Member of Parliament who, at the age of 50 or 60, is still a heavy smoker when he or she started to smoke cigarettes. They all said that they started when they were about 14 or 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who, as everybody knows, is a heavy smoker but is alive and looking well on it, told me that he would have loved to have stopped many years ago but could not do so. He started at the age of 14 or 15. I asked the same question of other smokers in the Tea Room. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) told me that he was hooked at an early age.
When we were kids, all the film heroes such as Errol Flynn and, later, Yul Brynner smoked. It was amazing how many of them died from the consequences of heavy smoking and of always having a cigarette in their hands when they made a film.
The conveyor belt is pushed by tobacco companies at sporting events such as the Embassy snooker championship and Benson and Hedges cricket. They get free advertising on the BBC's coverage of racing and other sporting events. They put up cash to hook young people on the conveyor belt at an early stage.
It is amazing to contrast that advertising with the breathalyser campaigns at Christmas. Drunken driving is a serious problem, but it kills less than 1 per cent. of the

number of people who die from the effects of smoking. Yet every Christmas there is a massive campaign, with all the chief constables hurling hundreds of policemen on to the streets to stop drunken driving. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I am not criticising that, but 110,000 people are killed every year by smoking. There are few warnings of the dangers of smoking, except on tube posters or the bottom of a cigarette packet.

Mrs. Gorman: Surely the hon. Gentleman admits that there is a difference between people choosing to smoke, which may harm their health, and a drunk driver who kills other people. How does he draw a comparison between that?

Mr. Ashton: Obviously there is a difference. I am saying that 110,000 people are killed by smoking, yet 1 per cent. of that figure are killed as a result of drunken driving. I am comparing the different emphasis in newspapers, on television and in interviews with the police. Something has got out of line somewhere when 110,000 deaths are not publicised as much as drunken driving is.

Mr. Stern: I am worried that the hon. Gentleman might inadvertently be confusing the House with bogus statistics. The 110,000 deaths from smoking include anyone who is known ever to have smoked and is therefore assumed to have died from smoking. Deaths from drunken driving are those that are proved to have related directly to a drunken driver. Is not the likelihood that both figures tend to meet in the middle?

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The statistics on deaths from drunken driving include drink-related accidents. Any drunk who staggers out of a pub and falls under a car that is being driven by a sober driver is a drink-related accident. Statistics can be used in many different ways, but we are talking about the wide disparity between 1,000 and 110,000 deaths.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman get off the hook by reminding him that it is widely accepted that smokers damage other people's health, to the point of causing their deaths as well.

Mr. Ashton: I am delighted that the hon. Lady said that because it takes me on to my next point. I introduced a Bill to provide for no-smoking areas in public houses. At that time, the hon. Lady was a Health Minister. Although it received a majority of 99 to 90, the hon. Lady did nothing to try to enforce it. No doubt she will answer that later.
Everybody accepts that there is a related smoking problem. It is amazing that, although smoking was banned on tube trains following the King's Cross disaster, and is barred on many aeroplanes, in restaurants and in many parts of the House of Commons, pubs do not have no-smoking areas. Pub landlords refuse to have them. I do not know why breweries refuse to have them, because all that happens is that people drink at home. They go to the off-licence, buy a six-pack of lager, sit in front of the television in their smoke-free house and drink it. Pubs are losing cash because of that, but for some stupid reason they refuse to introduce no-smoking areas in pubs.
This is an admirable Bill. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said, there will be problems defining its small print. The Minister probably remembers me accompanying the Parents Against Tobacco campaign to see him and our discussions on the problems with the


European Community's rules on advertising. How he can be against the European Community introducing a measure that helps to prevent death or illness, or even prevent crimes, I do not know, but we shall have to consider that in Committee.
As many other hon. Members wish to speak, and as there is a statement at 11 o'clock, I shall curtail my remarks. I thank Parents Against Tobacco for its magnificent campaign, which received the support of almost half the Members of the House and of nationally known figures, except the tobacco companies. I welcome the work that it has done and the support that it has given my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, me and the other sponsors.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is surely the duty of this House to seek to protect the health of its people, especially children. I agree that older people must make up their own minds about this issue, but until children come to the year of accountability it is our responsibility, in so far as it lies with us, to protect them.
The appalling figure of 110,000 deaths a year from smoking-related diseases, taken with the fact that, as has been said clearly today, usually people who start smoking young are chained and hooked to that ill, is alarming. The House is therefore wise to hold the debate. I congratulate Parents Against Tobacco and the sponsors of the Bill on their excellent campaign.
I am glad that the sponsors have extended the Bill to Northern Ireland, and I am sure that my colleagues in the House will join me in welcoming that fact. I draw the sponsors' attention to the fact that local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland are defined, but in Northern Ireland are not. Perhaps that could be put right in Committee so that there can be no doubt but that the local authority would be the district council, as that is the only local authority that we have. I trust that the sponsors will consider that, because too many people want to get out of their enforcement responsibility.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) put his finger on the heart of the problem—enforcement. We have heard strong condemnation today of the cynical attitude of shopkeepers. Everything that has been said in denunciation of those who would sell cigarettes to children and defy the law is fully justified. Those who have responsibility for these matters in local authorities and the Government should be condemned for not forcing the pace. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, the Government have taken the lead in dealing with drunken driving and have advertised the fact that the police intend to nail people who break the law. It is time that local government and central Government authorities made it clear that they intend to nail these offenders.
Shopkeepers break up packets of cigarettes, encouraging children to buy one or two. In Northern Ireland, shopkeepers cut cigarettes in half to make them cheaper so that children will buy them. We must deal with that. I welcome the fact that the Bill clearly spells out what it will do.

Mrs. Gorman: That sale is illegal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, it is; but it is better for the provisions to be in the Bill and emphasised so that everyone knows exactly what the law is.

Mr. Cryer: In ensuring enforcement of the law through the Bill, is not it important for the Government to encourage these provisions, not only by supporting the Bill but by ensuring that local authorities have sufficient funds to ensure that environmental health officers, who carry out an important range of tasks, carry out this one, too?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was coming to that point. It is no use saying to local authorities, "This is your responsibility", but not giving them the cash to meet it. They must have the cash to do the job that the law says they should do. It is ridiculous to ask local authorities to carry out a task but not give them the necessary funding. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mrs. Gorman: I listened to the hon. Member's story about evidence that shopkeepers cut cigarettes in half. As it is illegal to sell single cigarettes, why are not those people prosecuted, as the law insists? These are often apocryphal stories, manufactured by people who are trying to make a bad case stand up.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the hon. Lady knows, I do not believe in apocryphal writings. The local authorities will not take action on this matter, just as they will not in dealing with Sunday opening. It is no use the hon. Lady saying that these are apocryphal tales—they are true. Nothing has been done because the local authorities will not take action. They should be pushed to do so. The Sunday trading laws have been violated in Northern Ireland and little action has been taken. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not be so foolish as to say that there was no violation of those laws over Christmas. That is not an apocryphal story. It is a fact, but nothing has been done.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill shows the mind of the nation on this matter and the determination to deter this behaviour through sentences and fines? Local authorities and others have not been prosecuting because they have discovered when they go to court that it is a waste of time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member makes a vital point. What is the use of taking action when there is no deterrent? I welcome the fact that fines have been increased in the Bill. They should be substantially increased. I hope that the Minister does not knock that point, because it is a vital part of the deterrent.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Surely if there is an illegality, the hon. Member has the right to enforce the law under the common law. Why does not he bring a prosecution if he knows about a case?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think that I have the right under the law in Northern Ireland to bring a case. If the hon. Member would like to help me to finance cases, I shall enter into a partnership with him. I come from Ballymena, which is the Aberdeen of Northern Ireland. I should appreciate having a financial partner to help me in such cases.
Vending machines put temptation in the way of children, who can get around the law by using them. I welcome the fact that that matter is taken care of in the


Bill. It is right that the House should pay attention to this crying shame in our community and that we should all rally in support of our children and do everything that we can to protect their health, well-being and future.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and support everything that he said. I should like to pick up two points to introduce my speech. First, as a former solicitor, I know that it is notoriously difficult to get corroboration to prosecute. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rightly said that if the law is breached, the matter should be pursued in the courts; but the courts can deal with prosecutions only if there is substantial evidence that the law has been broken. The House should bear in mind the fact that it is difficult to establish that evidence.
Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, North did not mean to suggest that all tobacco retailers are bad people. I support the Bill as strongly as anyone and I should not like us to make this a campaign against tobacco retailers. There are many such retailers in my constituency and they tell me that it is difficult to determine the age of some young people. I hope that we will keep that balance in mind.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way. I agree with everything that he said. I just wanted to get the tone right.
The Bill is long overdue. Honourable attempts have been made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and by my constituent, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—who would have liked to be here but had pressing constituency engagements—to tackle this problem. The statistics have persuaded me over several years that the House should do so.
The introduction by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was exemplary. Everyone knows what a henpecked character he is. I am sure that if he were prepared to expand in Standing Committee on the dispute with his wife, we might be able to sell tickets and have hon. Members and members of the public queuing to get in. I, for one, should like to hear him describe that confrontation in detail, although his introduction did not leave much to be added.
It is difficult to oppose the Bill because no new legislative concepts, themes or principles have been brought before the House. The statistics are frightening—we have heard that one in five children is addicted to tobacco, involving expenditure of £90 million. Those who oppose the Bill should make clear the direction from which the dissent comes. We must be honest. I hope that those who oppose the Bill because of legitimate constituency interests—for example, substantial employment which may be affected by the Bill—will say so honestly. I hope that those who oppose the Bill because they are close to the tobacco industry will be honest about that and say so. There is much at stake in the Bill in terms of money. We must be honest about where the objections are coming from.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Kirkwood: I cannot resist the second attempt.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The largest tobacco company—Gallaher—is in my constituency. I made my attitude clear to that company. I hope that the Government will also take into account the fact that they should now start to encourage diversification and the creation of other jobs for people in the tobacco industry. It is no use for us to say today that we support the Bill and then not to take care of the people employed in the tobacco industry by getting them alternative employment.

Mr. Kirkwood: I appreciate that intervention as the hon. Gentleman has made a very positive point. I hope that the Government will take that point on board. We cannot just abandon employment prospects. No one who supports the Bill would want to do that. We are not in favour of destroying employment prospects, but we believe that steps can and should be taken to address that point.
The Bill is concerned with closing loopholes, with enforcement and with the fact that such tobacco sales are already illegal. The Bill merely seeks to provide strengthened powers for the enforcement authorities so that proper enforcement can be carried out. The Bill is also useful in its clarification of the confusion about who is responsible for enforcement. There are conflicting priorities and genuine confusion. The Bill goes a long way in attempting to clarify those confusions. Costs are, of course, involved and I agree with what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said about that. The Government cannot ignore the point.
If the Bill is enacted, it will send a powerful signal. It will give a signal not only to children that it is a daft idea to get hooked on tobacco and nicotine at an early age, and to local authorities that the House wants them to do something about the problem, but to retailers that this is a serious matter and not a minor issue that they can trim round the edges. The Bill will show that we are clear in our message to retailers that we will not put up with such tobacco sales. It is important to send that signal to the rest of the community.
The Parents Against Tobacco campaign has been rightly congratulated on its approach. It is a very professionally run campaign. The point that has impressed me more than anything is the way in which the campaigners have gone out of their way to go down the voluntary route. They have tried to get the voluntary co-operation of local authorities and they have gone a long way in establishing that voluntary co-operation. However, they can go no further and that is why we now need to consider the additional legislative powers that will be necessary. The voluntary approach has done as much as it can be expected to do.
We must persuade local authorities to tighten controls and procedures. We have established a high level of public support in the campaign and we have established considerable support among hon. Member of all parties. The Bill introduces a sensible list of practical steps which are necessary. The law is at present more observed in the breach than in the enforcement and we must put that right.
The Bill contains a combination of elements, all of which are important in themselves. The Bill is a preventive health measure. It would take pressure off the hard-pressed national health service and off other community services that look after our people's health. It would protect children against an addiction—for it is nothing short of that. I believe that it is a personal disaster


for some of our young people to become hooked on nicotine. It would also save the taxpayer money in the long term.
I understand that there may be some difficulties about the additional upfront costs which will be necessary immediately to get the enforcement procedures right. However, if the spirit of the Bill prevails, if it reaches the statute book and if it is enforced sensibly and expeditiously, it will save the taxpayer enormous sums in the long run and it will throw a lifeline to youngsters who might otherwise be afflicted by this terrible addiction. For all those reasons, it will be a great disaster if the House objects to the Bill. I hope that we will give it a Second Reading and get it on to the statute book as soon as we can.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on his opportunity to introduce the Bill. I accept his argument in principle, although I believe that there is such an abundance of legislation at present that the Bill is not really necessary. I do not consider it appropriate that children under 16 should smoke. When I was at college we got six of the best if we were discovered smoking. That does not happen now, so we have to use other methods of persuasion to try to ensure that children do not smoke. That is in their interests.
There is an assumption that the Bill will succeed. I want to refer to clause 1(1G). We know what local authorities do and we have seen how vigilant they have been in enforcing the Shops Acts. That is true in my constituency. I can imagine how diligent local authorities will be in conducting periodic surveys and in investigating every complaint that is made. They would have to have an enormous number of people to do that. To bring a case, they would have to be satisfied that there had been a failure to comply with the law and they would then have to bring proceedings or, as it says in the Bill in a get-out phrase,
to take such other steps as may be necessary to ensure compliance.
I am not certain that the Bill will be any more successful than previous legislation. The House should recognise that legislation is already available—for example, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Children and Young

Persons Act 1963 and the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. I accept that enforceability is the main point, as the hon. Member for Warley, East, said. We are concerned not with penalties, but with whether the law is enforceable. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that under the common law, if there is an illegality, it is open to anyone in the street to conduct a prosecution. Anyone can bring a prosecution and can prevent people from falling into bad ways, but, as has been said earlier, people do not want to foot the bill.
Have we overlooked the fact that while we are trying to lambast the retailers, the people who should be disclosing information and do not do so, we should be considering the duty of the parents and the education system? Teachers spend considerable time with their students at schools and colleges and they can instil into them the undesirability of smoking. Children spend most of the rest of their time at home. What are the parents doing about this? Are they trying to persuade their own children that they should not smoke? There is a health problem involved, so enforcement is not entirely for the courts; it is also for the others involved.
I emphasise, as other hon. Members have, that simply hitting the retailer hard—and many of them are perfectly reasonable and good—is an unfair way to proceed. It is well known that one can chase human nature out of the back door, but it will come in the front door. Human nature is extraordinary. I dare say that some retailers sell tobacco to children because they think that they can get away with it. If they can get away with it under present legislation, it could reasonably be argued that if the local authorities were in charge of such matters, the retailers could probably get away with it in similar circumstances.
We should not merely make full use of the judicial system and improve the law as it already exists on the statute book, but make full use of the sociological consequences to ensure that parents, religion, schools and all the other agencies for inculcating the right ideas into children, are fully utilised.
While it was indicated today that smoking among youths is going up, figures from the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in July 1989 show that the percentage of boys who smoke at least one cigarette a week were, in 1982—
It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Israel (Iraqi Attack)

11 am

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Earlier this morning, seven Scud missiles, fired from mobile launchers in Iraq, struck Israel. They are reported to have landed at or near Tel Aviv, in Haifa and near Nazareth. The missiles carried conventional warheads.
The Israeli Government have shown great restraint over the past five and a half months, restraint which we warmly applaud. Earlier this morning, the Prime Minister issued a statement saying that he was appalled at the Iraqi attack. The House will want to join the Prime Minister and myself in condemning this outrageous attack on Israel's civilian population. It will be seen in all parts of the world as a reckless ploy to widen the conflict. The House will note that the attack was wholly indiscriminate, and it is a miracle that no one was killed.
During the night we were in close touch with the United States Administration and with the Governments of Israel and certain Arab countries. I have spoken this morning to the Israeli Foreign Minister and to the Egyptian Foreign Minister.
We understand fully the anger of the Israeli Government and people and their responsibility for the defence of their own country. We have asked them to understand in turn the need to retain the greatest possible support for the military action being undertaken against Iraq, including among the Arab nations who have joined us in that action or who support it. Israel has the right of self-defence, and no one can take that decision from them; but we believe that restraint by Israel at this time would be interpreted as strength not weakness, given the powerful military operation now under way against Iraq in pursuit of the objectives laid down by the United Nations.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman or a relevant colleague would continue to provide statements to the House whenever appropriate.
The Opposition totally condemn the missile attack on Israel, an attack entirely without provocation on a country which is in no way involved either in the Gulf dispute or the current hostilities. It is a wanton act of aggression, based on vicious prejudice. I share the relief that there were no serious casualties.
While I understand completely the sense of outrage of the Israelis at the deliberate provocation, I trust that they will not be provoked. Their restraint so far has been exemplary. Saddam Hussein has taken this action cynically to set a trap for the Israelis. I hope that the Israelis will not fall into that trap by making a military response. The cause of ending Saddam Hussein's aggression will more likely be damaged than enhanced by an Israeli military response.
This action emphasises the basic evil of the Iraqi regime, from which the Iraqi people, the Kurds and, most recently, the Kuwaitis, have suffered. Now that military action by the coalition, under United Nations authority, is under way, it is more essential than ever that it be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for what he said, which suggests that there is widespread agreement on the subject in the House.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statements appearing to emanate from the Israeli Government that they are prepared not to take action in retaliation are one of the most hopeful signs that have emerged from the conflict so far? Does he agree that, if they are seen to follow the precept set out by Shakespeare in Act 4 of "The Merchant of Venice"—that
The quality of mercy is not strained"—
they will materially contribute to a successful conclusion to many of the problems in the Gulf?

Mr. Hurd: When I spoke to Mr. Levi, this morning, the meeting of the Israeli Cabinet was still proceeding, and he courteously came out to speak to me, so I cannot confirm what my hon. Friend said. I laid before Mr. Levi certain considerations. The Israelis have a difficult decision to make, and we understand fully the difficulty in which they are placed.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this happening underlines the luck in war, because there could have been hundreds of dead instead of seven slightly injured? We pay tribute to the restraint that the Israelis have shown.
A rumour is circulating: will the Foreign Secretary assure us that despite the fact that to avoid hitting civilian targets, 20 per cent. of our attacks are being aborted, there will be no loosening of the excellent precision bombing that is a yardstick of the battle plan? Does he agree that, while many in the House have not, as we have, accepted the necessity of hostilities, in these circumstances those people should also recognise that, even had there been no hostilities, at some not-too-distant time, those Scud missiles would have landed in Israel in any event? That is a fact.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman makes a shrewd point. As regards his first question, I certainly say—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is sitting beside me—that there is no question of the operation being loosened. It is tightly controlled. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, instructions are given to minimise the civilian causalties wherever possible, and the targets that our forces have been instructed to attack are, without exception, military targets or targets of strategic importance.

Sir Norman Fowler: The attack on Israel is an unwelcome development which the whole country will totally deplore, but is not it clear that, however difficult, restraint from Israel is not only in the international interest but in the national interest of Israel?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall add a piece of information that the House may have already had from other sources—it appeared that Israel was not the only country to be attacked by Scud missiles last night. Apparently, there was also an attempted but frustrated missile attack on Dhahran in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that, while the Israelis will listen with respect to the views that he and others have expressed


about restraint, it is for their Government, as the democratically elected Government of the country, to take such steps as they regard as necessary to protect their citizens? In recognising that that is an anguished decision, does he not see that it is far easier to urge restraint from here than to accept it after a citizen, his family and friends—innocent civilians—have been bombed, and when restraint may be taken by Saddam Hussein as an indication of something else?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think that I recognised that fully in the answer that I gave, as we have in everything that we have said to the Israelis who have a difficult decision. Their pressures and anxieties are immediate and strong. The account that I was given by Mr. Levi of the anxieties and fears of the night, when people felt that they might well be under chemical attack, are perfectly understandable. We must understand that as the background against which the Israelis have to take their decision.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise and extremely appropriate statement on this new and dangerous development? Will he confirm that five Arab countries are supporting the coalition with military means, and that the vast majority of the 22 Arab countries support the coalition? Does he agree that the allies have at their disposal all the weapons required to deal with the problem?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right on his first point. In relation to his second point, it will come as a surprise to no one that the allied commanders are well aware of that particular problem and are anxious to deal with it.

Dr. David Owen: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary's well-judged statement has the support of everyone in the House, and I do not wish to add to it. However, will he consider how we counter Saddam Hussein's propaganda, and in particular how we use every possible mechanism to show the world that this is still essentially an inter-Arab conflict?

Mr. Hurd: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we have spent a lot of time on that. As he said, it is essentially for Arabs to put their point of view forward, as it comes convincingly from them. That is why the Egyptian Government and all our friends in the coalition have done a great deal—we have done our best to help them do a great deal—to make that point. The idea that Saddam Hussein is accepted as a spokesman or champion for the Arab world does not stand up to examination.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are asking the people of Israel to exercise self-restraint on a scale that no other democracy in the world would be willing to exercise? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will show understanding for the people of Israel in whatever decision they take, because they have been attacked for no good reason? The fact that there was no loss of life was due to the intervention of the Almighty and not to the deeds of Saddam Hussein. Those missiles were sent to kill rather than simply to maim and injure.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right on the last point. In what 1 have said to the House and in what I have said in private, I have tried to show the understanding that he seeks.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the successful prosecution of a just war requires conduct so far as possible that is conducive to obtaining a just peace? Since the preamble to the United Nations charter allows the use of force only when peace and security have been broken, is not it therefore wise to remember that the peace in that whole area was uneasy and that security was tenuous for many? Because of that, will he charge all his colleagues and everyone concerned in this unfortunate affair that the successful prosecution of the war is as important as the successful prosecution by the United Nations in a new era of those underlying causes and incidents of which we are all aware?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly the area has become much more unstable since the aggression on 2 August. Our aim is to reverse that aggression as the United Nations has authorised and required. We must then go on—in that the hon. Gentleman is right—to try to work again for answers to the different problems in the middle east on the basis that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: While I agree with the Foreign Secretary's statement and the opinion expressed in the House calling on Israel to exercise restraint, would not it be well for the Secretary of State to assure the House and to assure Israel publicly that the allied forces will do everything in their power to seek out those missile sites and deal with them, so that such an incident will not recur?

Mr. Hurd: I have already answered that question indirectly. The allied nations engaged in the military action against Iraq are well aware of that particular problem and are anxious to deal with it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the media and the world at large should contrast the difference between the precision bombing against military targets by the international force and the indiscriminate attack on civilian targets by Saddam Hussein? While I welcome the statement, and as I come from a Province in which we know what it takes to try to exercise restraint in the face of terrorism, we urge Israel to depend on the international forces at this time to defeat Saddam.

Mr. Hurd: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has both points exactly right.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for the prosecution of the war and for the negotiations for peace that Israel shows great restraint in retaliation on this matter? Does he also agree that it is important that, in the face of future provocations that may well occur from the Iraqis, Israel should remember that it is important that any retaliation to which it may resort is in proportion to the attack from Iraq?

Mr. Hurd: Both my hon. Friend's points are well taken.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the unfortunate reports in today's Daily Mail and Sun of thousands of Muslims praying in mosques


for Saddam Hussein's victory, and about friction on certain factory shop floors yesterday? In view of that, will he ask the Prime Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the president of the Council of Mosques, and perhaps one or two newspaper editors, before a potentially difficult racial situation arises?

Mr. Hurd: We certainly are anxious to show everyone in this country and Muslims across the world that this is not a question of the west against Muslims or the west against Arabs. I have seen much evidence to make me believe that many Arabs and a great majority of Muslims repudiate the idea that Saddam Hussein is in some way their champion. However, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has a good point. We must pay particular attention to making that point effectively to our fellow citizens.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, several years ago, Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear-weapon-making potential? That action was condemned at the time by many countries, including this one. In view of what happened last night, would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on what might have happened had Israel not taken that action?

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to go back on that, because the present situation is different. Israel is not alone in facing the present circumstances. A very powerful military action is under way, which has begun favourably, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reported. There can be no doubt in the minds of the Israelis about the determination with which the allies, including the more important Arab states, are conducting that operation.

Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the undoubted outrage that the Israeli Government and the Israeli people feel about that unprovoked aggression, the Government of Israel know that that is part of Saddam Hussein's political strategy to involve them in the war and therefore—as he believes—to strengthen his particular cause and gain support. They know that, but is not the major concern in the minds of the Israeli Government likely to be whether last night's attack is likely to be repeated and whether, next time, it might comprise a chemical weapons attack?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed, they will have that thought in their minds. I sympathise for once with what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said about that. It is much easier for us to make such points, and I made the same point as the right hon. Gentleman about the attack being a reckless ploy to widen the conflict. That is what it obviously was. However, it is easier for us to make such points in the Chamber than it is for the Israeli Cabinet to reach a decision.

Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. Friend referred a moment ago to the interception of another missile. Is not that a tribute to the skill and professionalism of the international forces, which were able to intercept that missile and thereby prevent further escalation last night?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. That episode has now been confirmed. A Scud missile was destroyed over Saudi Arabia by a Patriot counter-missile. That was a notable and significant feat.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not this attack demonstrate more clearly than anything that has happened so far why we could not allow Iraq to continue to develop its nuclear capability? Is not the launching of a missile of known inaccuracy against urban targets a terror attack in the pure tradition of the V1 and V2?
Should not the Israeli Cabinet, which I believe is meeting at the moment, realise that it can do nothing to add to the military impact of a United Nations strike against Iraq, and that nothing it can do will deter Iraq—indeed, that quite the opposite would be the case? A strike by Israel would be the only good news Saddam has had since this tragic disaster unfolded.

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to add to what I have said about the nature of the decision that the Israelis have to take, but I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. Looking at the television pictures this morning, some of us were reminded of the pictures of London in 1944 and 1945 and a house suddenly being destroyed by a V1 or a V2 rocket.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is not it clear that the latest act of cynical aggression by the Iraqi leader demonstrates that we are dealing with a man who, as long as he has a capability, whatever that capability may be, is tempted—indeed, likely—to use it? Should not the relevant Governments of the United Nations coalition take that point fully into account in the coming days and weeks?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think that we are dealing now with someone whose recklessness has overcome any rational form of calculation. That is particularly dangerous.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the Secretary of State agree that the outrageous attack upon Israel, which everyone should condemn, demonstrates that we are engaged in a political struggle with Saddam Hussein as well as a military conflict? Is not it important that, bearing in mind the fact that he has asked the Israelis to impose restraint upon themselves, we are able to use that source of strength to take crucial political initiatives at crucial moments? Would not it undercut Saddam Hussein's present political strategy if the Security Council, in a fresh session, made a fresh, unequivocal commitment to convene an early middle east peace conference?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last suggestion. An attempt to call an international conference on the Palestinian question in the context of the aggression against Kuwait would be bound to fail. Israel would not come to such a conference, and at least three of the major Arab countries have made it clear to us that they wholly reject the idea that Saddam Hussein or his aggression against Kuwait should be treated as putting him in a special position as regards the dispute. It would not work.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not this evil act of aggression against Israel emphasise even more strongly the need to maintain the intensity, precision and discrimination of the allied aerial bombardment of Iraq? One must remember that our aircrews are seeking not only to destroy military targets but to spare civilian populations and centres of religious and cultural activity. Will my right hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for


Defence to ensure that adequate air reserves are available to the Royal Air Force to maintain the momentum and to sustain the intensity of required air operations?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that that second point is already established. My hon. Friend is on to an important point with his first question. Certainly, particular steps are being taken by the allies to avoid damage to places of particular religious or cultural significance.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not the Secretary of State aware that those who call upon the Israelis to exercise what is in effect almost superhuman self-control also have a duty to make sure that Israel is secure within her proper boundaries and that those who speak for muddled political reasons about what will happen after the war do nothing either to retain the confidence of the Israelis or to encourage the Israeli people to respond in the way that we require?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that we in this House have always made it clear that the safety of Israel behind secure borders, to use the phrase in resolution 242, is an essential part—not the only essential part—of any eventual settlement.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I refer again to the Scud missile over Saudi Arabia, which we understand was brought down by counter-missile technology? Although nobody here wants Israel to attack, the British people would like to feel that Israel could defend itself, particularly as the targets appear to have been civilian. We would not wish to see that country leaving its own population completely helpless. If, therefore, the state of Israel would wish to obtain some of the latest counter-missile technology, could we be assured that this country at least would not stand in her way?

Mr. Hurd: That is a different question. Equally, no one who knows the situation believes that Israel is defenceless in these matters.

Mr. David Winnick: Although I totally agree with the wise advice that is being given by the allies to the Israeli Government on what happened yesterday, is not it important for the allies and certainly for our Government not to come to the conclusion that military victory will necessarily be decisive and quick? Obviously, we all hope that it will be. Should we prepare our people for the fact that the war may go on longer than we would like, and that we are dealing with a bunch of criminals in Baghdad who are determined, as was shown last night, to do everything that they possibly can to widen the war?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday repeatedly emphasised the hon. Gentleman's point that we are at the beginning of a difficult operation.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq's inaccurate Scud missiles are weapons not of military precision but of civilian terror and that, for that reason, all over the world there will be enormous sympathy for Israel's terrorised domestic population at this hour? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the restraint of which he spoke could take two forms—either no retaliation at all, or retaliation of a

measured and limited and proportionate nature? Is it my right hon. Friend's view that either form of retaliation would not be likely to break up the Arab coalition?

Mr. Hurd: I have deliberately not been specific about the kind of restraint that the Israeli Government might exercise.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May I join the Secretary of State in condemning the unprovoked attack on Israel? Is not it absolutely tragic that it has taken deadly Scud missiles to demonstrate the linkage that many blinkered western politicians refused to recognise at an earlier stage when a diplomatic solution was still a possibility? [Interruption.] I am looking ahead. Does the Secretary of State agree that, once the hostilities are eventually over, the post-war peace conference will have to tackle all the disputes throughout the middle east, and the sooner that is recognised the better?

Mr. Hurd: Of course, as I have said often, and many others have said, once the aggression is reversed we will have to return to the agenda of problems in the middle east, and I hope with renewed vigour. I have already dealt with linkage. I simply do not believe that that would have helped either the Kuwait crisis or any other problem in the middle east.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the absolute security of Israel is a fundamental requirement of the House for emotional, humanitarian and intellectual and rational reasons and always has been, and that, equally, his call for restraint by them, which has already been remarkable so far, will be echoed around the world—a restraint which will enormously enhance Israel's status for the post-Saddam Hussein stabilisation of the region, which will become more and more essential as the weeks go by? Does he agree that, because Israel precisely possesses among the best armed forces in the middle east and arguably the best air force in the middle east, it is showing commendable restraint at the moment for an act which is evil, and is condemned universally?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend that Israel, however well defended she is, is bound all the time to be anxious about her own security. That is a continuing factor, a continuing part of the middle east situation, which we have to respect. Equally, we believe and hope that, after the crisis is over, Israel herself will make a positive and constructive response, which will go beyond simply an assertion of existing positions.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Foreign Secretary share my pleasure that apparently no one was killed in the attack, just as I am pleased if western bombs fail to kill Iraqis in this futile war? Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the likelihood that NATO is about to get involved from Turkey—offensive action from Turkey—outside its area and its charter?

Mr. Hurd: Of course that last point is not correct. The first point has already been made from Opposition Benches. There is a visible and complete difference between the kind of precision bombing, which has now been well documented at the receiving end, and the kind of holes in houses and frightened and injured civilians in Israel which we saw on television this morning.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the third unprovoked attack by Iraq on a fellow middle east country, following the attacks on Iran and Kuwait? Building on the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), does my right hon. Friend accept that what the majority of Arab nations understand and what the minority in this country and the House do not yet understand is that granting a monopoly of violence from Saddam Hussein is a recipe for disaster in the middle east and the rest of the world rather than for justice and peace?

Mr. Hurd: There comes a point when violence, once we have tried to check and reverse it by all possible means, has to be met by force—and we have come to that point this week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that everybody will hope that Israel accepts the message not to retaliate against such an aggressive act, because it would widen this unnecessary war and engulf the Gulf in an even bloodier conflict? Do not the current developments confirm the view taken by some of us that it would have been preferable to maintain sanctions rather than to embark upon a war that has such potentially perilous consequences?

Mr. Hurd: We have argued that point during the last few days—[Interruption.] We have not converted the hon. Gentleman, but the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) carried with them the great majority of Opposition Members.

Sir Peter Hordern: While understanding all the difficulties and provocations with which Israel is now faced, would not it be better for the successful prosecution of the war and the cohesion of the allies, as well as for a successful peace settlement afterwards, if Israel were to stay out of the war?

Mr. Hurd: Our way is the way of restraint. As my hon. Friends have said, the options before the Israelis are not confined to just two; there are different ways in which they

can handle the matter. Whatever course they choose, we hope that it will be restrained, in the sense that it does not signal the entry of Israel as a participant in the military action.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is not it likely that an entirely unintended consequence of that murderous attack upon Israel will be a diminution in the near-euphoria displayed by so many so-called experts and journalists during the early days of the war? Should not such TV journalists be reminded that their enthusiastic use of toy soldiers, toy aircraft and toy tanks may cause considerable distress to the families of men serving in the Gulf? I do not ask for censorship, merely for restraint in the enthusiastic use of such graphics.

Mr. Hurd: Personally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that what he has said will be noted.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the most dramatic events imaginable could occur in the middle east this weekend, should not the House be in session? We could meet for a short period on Saturday and another short period on Sunday, so that statements such as this, referring to the latest position, could be made. That would help us to fulfil our role as representatives, and it would also help us to monitor the position.
Is not the restraint of the Israelis to be considerably commended? Is not it a pity that such restraint was not shown by the American and British Governments, so that the bombings in Iraq would not have taken place, with the disaster that will be associated with that? We hear nothing about areas such as Basra, where there has been heavy bombing.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that many Israelis would agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. On his first point, the Government have been forward in coming to the House to make statements, provide information and arrange debates. Indeed, another debate has been arranged for next Monday. The House has had many opportunities, and will have further opportunities, to discuss and pronounce on the matter.

Children and Young Persons (Protection Against Tobacco) Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Before the statement, I was about to give some figures in answer to the allegation that smoking among children under the age of 16 was increasing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber please leave quietly?

Sir Trevor Skeet: The figures that I was about to give are from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in July 1989. The figures for boys who smoke at least one cigarette per week was 11 per cent. in 1982; 13 per cent. in 1984—after which the figures fall away fast—7 per cent. in 1986; and 7 per cent. in 1988. That analysis shows that in fact fewer young people are smoking. As there are fewer young people in the country, it means that between 1984 and 1988 the reduction in the number of young people smoking was close to 50 per cent.

Mr. Faulds: I did not intend to intervene again, because I had my whack this morning, but I think that the latest figures prove that although smoking has declined among boys under the age of 16, among girls under the age of 16 it has risen remarkably.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who was right to intervene. I shall give the figures for girls. In 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1988, they were 11, 13, 12 and then down to 9 per cent. respectively. The trend tends to be downwards.
There are so many disincentives to the selling of tobacco that it is not surprising that the numbers are falling both for adults and for younger people. The Government are funding the anti-smoking campaign; there are social embargoes in many parts of the country —such as on the tubes, where one cannot smoke—there are health warnings on packets; there is a ban on TV advertising and, of course, there is increased taxation on cigarettes. All those, together with the right of parents to try to persuade their children not to smoke, mean that the penny is beginning to drop in the United Kingdom that the abandonment of heavy smoking is a good idea.
I began with the general argument that it would be useful to have good legislation, but not necessarily a Bill as lengthy as this one. Clause 1(1) (a) deals with the straight sale of tobacco to children under 16. That is already covered by section 1 of the 1933 Act. New section 7(1B) to (1D) covers vending machines. That is already covered by section 7(2) of the 1933 Act. Although it is right that penalties should be increased over time, it is enforcement, not penalties, that matters. The Criminal Justice Bill is now before the House, and I understand that if fines are inadequate, they can be increased on appeal. However, I accept that there may be a simple argument about penalties.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I do not wish to comment on what one might call the English element of the Bill. I have been approached by a number of voluntary organisations of one sort or another

in Scotland, urging me to support the Bill because of the inadequacies and deficiencies in the 1937 Scottish Act dealing with this sort of offence.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I believe that we need a modification of the 1933 and 1963 Acts, but not an entirely new Bill of nine clauses. We can be as sure as we can when dealing with human nature that, our having put certain safeguards into legislation, outside agencies such as the education system, and also the parents, can be left to do the rest.
Proposed new sections (1G) and (1H) apply to local authorities—the original legislation was set out in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—and are comparable to previous provisions. The new sections are spelt out at some length in the Bill. One of the difficulties is that I can see enormous departments being created in all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. This consequence has not been costed. Whether we have a rating system or a community charge, there will be an extremely heavy lift.
Clause 2 deals with the Scottish system. It is largely a repetition of what has gone before and of what I have said.
Clause 4 deals with warning statements. There is a voluntary arrangement involving the industry and the Government, and apparently it is working remarkably well. I understand that the arrangement can be renegotiated from time to time. I should have thought that that was sufficient.
There is a voluntary arrangement with the Government that bears on advertisements. If my hon. Friend the Minister tells us of his thoughts about that, I should like to know whether he is dissatisfied with the arrangements that now exist. Am I not right in assuming that in the EEC the Commission is negotiating for a new approach to the matter? If it comes to a diktat that will have to be complied with in the United Kingdom, we shall have to introduce legislation here, making it unnecessary, apparently, for further things to be done.
When we examine the Bill carefully we find that most of its provisions are to be found elsewhere. As I have emphasised, it is most important that it should be recognised that modifications to the existing law would provide a much better solution.
Surely the tobacco industry is not altogether bad. It collects about £5 billion per annum in taxation for the United Kingdom, and that money is spent on education and the health service, for example. It employs, in areas of high unemployment, about 16,500 workers. I should hate to think that these people are to be dispersed. One has the opportunity to smoke or the opportunity to renounce smoking. I agree with the argument that has been deployed by the hon. Member for Warley, East that children under 16 should not smoke, and there is a law to prevent that. I should have thought that while accepting the principle it is not necessary to accept the Bill. I do not, however, intend to vote against its provisions.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand part of the argument that has been presented by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet). The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that those who have constituency interests should speak honestly about them. Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have part of the tobacco industry in my constituency. There are also many


tobacco retailers, and they are concerned about the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North referred to the contribution that is made by the tobacco industry through taxation. It seems a somewhat false approach that we should increase taxes on the British tobacco industry and allow cheap imports to enter the United Kingdom from overseas to destroy jobs here. Perhaps the Government should try to diversify jobs instead of continuing to penalise the home industry by permitting cheap imports from overseas. That, however, does not reflect on the purpose of the Bill.
The aim or purpose of the Bill is to clarify current legislation on under-age smoking. The red herring has been trailed that retailers cannot identify individuals' ages. That reinforces an argument that I have advanced on more than one occasion. The sooner we have an identity system so that publicans and others who presently hide behind their responsibilities will be left with no excuse, the better it will be. With the introduction of an identity system, they would be able to say, "Where is your ID?" I understand that there are so-called libertarians who do not like that idea. The harsh reality is that many of us carry IDs of various descriptions.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fundamental principle. Do people belong to the state or does the state belong to the people? Why should people be identified by a card? If someone makes a mistake in judging a person's age, why should he be punished? Why should a penalty be imposed upon him for, of all things, wrongly identifying the age of a purchaser of any product?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the hon. Lady's fight for so-called liberties. I believe, however, that the state has certain rights to restrict liberties. The hon. Lady might like to drive on the wrong side of the road because that is more acceptable to her, but we must recognise that the state has a right to legislate for the social well-being of its citizens.
We are dealing with one of the greatest problems that affect our society, which is one of addiction.

Mr. Stern: I wish to pursue the argument which the hon. Gentleman has advanced, which I find horrifying. Even the proponents of identity cards, with whom I do not agree, have not suggested so far the enforced carrying of a pass for adults. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that children should be the subject of such enforcement. Should we send children of 11 years to correction houses for failing to carry an identity card? The proposal is monstrous.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The opponents of the Bill have a tremendous habit of trailing red herrings. Anyone who heard what the hon. Gentleman claims that I said will have a wonderful job searching the pages of Hansard to find such words. There is no point in putting up Aunt Sallies to defend a hopeless case. We do not propose that children of 11 years should be given identity cards. I was talking about adults. If an adult has an identity card, he or she can show it. There is no question of compulsory carrying of such cards. We do not have compulsorily to carry with us our driving licences, but we are required from time to time to produce them to show that we have them.
All of us have probably been tempted to smoke. Some of us, in our youth, discovered that smoking cinnamon sticks was a way of avoiding smoking Wills or other products. The hon. Member for Billericay and others say

that the law is there to be enforced and that if it is not, it is possible to bring a civil action. The harsh reality and the tragedy is that authorities throughout the country are trying to place on individuals the responsibility of upholding and maintaining the law. The authorities should be setting standards and upholding and maintaining the law.
I support the principles that lie behind the Bill. I trust that it will receive a Second Reading and will have a fair run in Committee. I hope that it will become law. I ask a question, however, because I know something about the ways of mankind and womankind. There is legislation in Northern Ireland—I am not sure whether there is similar legislation in Great Britain—for the supply of intoxicating liquor to minors. It is not the sale, but the supply, of liquor. Is the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) satisfied that possible loopholes have been covered?
The hon. Gentleman has done a wonderful job presenting the Bill and I accept the underlying principles. I support the provisions that relate to vending machines. It is possible, however, for someone older than 16 years to purchase and supply to a minor. In that way the adult is encouraging the minor to go along the path of smoking. The heart of the Bill is sound, but I wonder whether there are loopholes that many will find their way through.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It might be helpful to the House if 1 intervened at this stage to explain the Government's view on the Bill.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) most warmly on his success in the ballot and on his usual eloquence, but, on this occasion, the controlled passion with which he introduced his Bill. He was right to choose this topic, as I am sure that his wife will soon bite back her own disappointment to acknowledge.
I should also declare a personal interest. By that I simply mean that, in common with most hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am extremely concerned about the grave dangers of children starting to smoke and the apparent ease with which they can buy cigarettes. I join the hon. Member for Warley, East and other hon. Members in condemning unreservedly those irresponsible retailers who sell cigarettes to young children. It is difficult to credit that anyone in their right mind should do so. Besides being a flagrant disregard for the law, it undoubtedly helps to encourage youngsters to take up the smoking habit. Every responsible adult would agree that we need to do all we reasonably can to avoid the creation of new generations of smokers.
The issue is thus rightly of great public interest and importance. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly parents, want to see an effective and well-targeted Bill on the statute book and so do the Government. I shall therefore ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, but, I must add, on the understanding that we shall be seeking substantial amendments to it in Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Warley, East and his sponsors and supporters will take real encouragement from that. When we discuss the changes in Committee, I hope that they will come to accept that they will improve and not undermine the Bill.
Before I say what changes we shall look for, it might be helpful if I described the current law and set out what


measures the Government are taking to encourage children not to take up smoking. I shall then place on record our reservations about some of the Bill's provisions.
The sale of cigarettes to children under 16 has been illegal since 1904. The current legislation is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and, in Scotland, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, both as amended by the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. The 1986 Act extended the ban on sales of cigarettes to all products containing tobacco, including those intended for oral or nasal use. That was necessary because of the introduction of new forms of tobacco, particularly sachets containing oral snuff that could be attractive to children.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government were unsuccessful in the High Court before Christmas in a case concerning Skoal Bandits? The sale of that product was banned by the Government under regulation, but their decision was not upheld in the High Court. Can my hon. Friend say whether the Government are to appeal?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not familiar with the details of that judgment, so I shall have to inform my hon. Friend of the Government's detailed intentions in another way.
Research has shown that most smokers take up regular smoking before the age of 18. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who I know has always taken an active interest in this problem. In 1988 in England, for example, 17 per cent. of 15-year-old-boys and 22 per cent. of 15-year-old-girls were smoking regularly. However, the same survey showed that regular smoking among boys aged 11 to 15 had dropped from 13 per cent. in 1984 to 7 per cent. in 1988 and, among girls, from 13 per cent. in 1984 to 9 per cent. in 1988. The most recent evidence we have suggests that teenage smoking remains at around the 1988 level. Similar patterns are found in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Government are anxious to reduce those figures further. In 1989, for example, the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority announced the launch of a campaign to bring down the level of teenage smoking. The campaign's main objective is to cut by one third the number of teenagers who smoke regularly. It is hoped to achieve that target by publicity campaigns to influence children and to gain public support. The active backing of schools, local education authorities, health authorities and other national and local organisations is of course a vital ingredient—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in his sensible speech.
A considerable health education effort directed towards teenage smoking is also undertaken in Scotland. In Wales, the campaign against smoking is carried out on many fronts, including the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and voluntary organisations such as ASH—Action on Smoking and Health.
The measures in the Bill concentrate on the supply side. They seek to prevent access by children to cigarettes. That is important, but I am sure the hon. Member for Warley, East would agree that that cannot be the whole answer. History suggests that supply side control strategies such as

prohibition are never enough in themselves. We must look at the demand side as well, and that is why the Government are supporting health education programmes.
The responsibility for discouraging young people from smoking cannot lie exclusively with the Government. A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health concluded that two of the most important factors in young people starting to smoke were smoking by parents and smoking by older brothers and sisters. As long as adults continue to smoke, some children will want to experiment with the habit.
I am sure that the demand side initiatives will have the full support of everyone in the House and of Parents Against Tobacco, which launched its own programme last year with the backing of many right hon. and hon. Members. I applaud its campaign. I have met representatives of Parents Against Tobacco on two occasions in the past six months and we had useful and wide-ranging discussions on tackling the problem of the sale of cigarettes to young children.
As I said earlier, there have been some encouraging signs in the drop in the number of young children who are regular smokers. However, the illegal sale of tobacco to children under 16 remains a serious problem. Research has shown that most children who smoke obtain their cigarettes from shops and that those who try to obtain their cigarettes in that way are too frequently successful. It is therefore clear that the law is being flouted by a significant number of retailers. The evidence suggests that the problem is more acute in smaller outlets rather than in supermarkets or off-licences.
Last year, I announced that it was the Government's intention to strengthen the law banning the sale of tobacco to children under 16. The change in the law that I have particularly in mind is designed to clarify and strengthen the responsibilities of retailers in complying with the law in this area. I therefore intend to seek in Committee an amendment to section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by removing the rather imprecise "apparently" and substituting a statutory defence where the defendant retailer can show that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the person in question was under 16.
A change of that kind would clarify and strengthen the enforcement of section 7 by removing from the offence the criterion of whether the customer is apparently under 16, and making it clear that the offence is committed where the person is actually under 16, but allowing a defence where the retailer has acted in genuine good faith. That is far from a modest change; indeed, it is one which I am confident will make this law far more effective in practice. It has an excellent precedent in the reformed liquor licensing legislation, where the numbers of prosecutions of licensees who sold alcohol to people under 18 increased significantly when the law was tightened in a similar way a few years ago. I hope that the hon. Member for Warley, East will be glad to include such a change in his Bill, and I am sure that he will. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill contain effectively identical amendments to the existing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland. There are no specifically different Scottish issues here and my comments apply equally to the proposals in both clauses.

Sir Trevor Skeet: When dealing with vending machines, which are included in new section 7(1B) to (1D), could not my hon. Friend amend section 7(2) of the 1933 Act as he has said that he wants to amend section 7(1)?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall come to vending machines later. I understand my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, if he is making the point that I think he is making, it is a very good suggestion.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm the definition in the Bill, on the second line of page 4, that "premises" include, among other things, moveable structures? Would a passenger ferry be included in the definition of a moveable structure?

Mr. Lloyd: Subject to further cogitation, I believe that a ferry would come under the law, assuming that that ferry was in a place to which English or Scottish law extended.
Clause 2 fails to take account of the prosecution system in Scotland, which should be of interest to the hon. Member for Warley, East. Prosecutions there are brought by the procurator fiscal and not by the local authority.
In regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, and I am glad that it does. As he suggested, perhaps we should mention local authorities in Northern Ireland as well.
I am afraid that I cannot support the Bill's proposals on penalties as they stand. The Bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for selling tobacco to children from £400 to £2,000. Level 3 fines have been £400 and I believe that that is the right maximum level of offences such as this, which threaten health and safety but where the threat is not immediately dangerous. The fact that the highest fine imposed in 1989 was £250 tends to show that the courts find the current maximum more than sufficient. However, as a result of the general uprating in the standard scale of fines in the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for a level 3 offence will increase to £1,000. That Bill is before the House at the moment.
I hope that the Bill's sponsors will not be disappointed by that. When I met Parents Against Tobacco we spoke about the maximum penalty for selling tobacco to the under-aged and we were at one that it should increase. A figure of £2,000 was discussed, but, in my recollection, it was not agreed. I wrote to PAT last November and explained that it was difficult to justify increasing the maximum level of fine when the present maximum was so rarely used. More particularly, we needed to ensure, wherever possible, that new or amended penalties are not incompatible with existing offences of a similar gravity.
Offences that fall into the same category as selling tobacco to children include supplying an air weapon to a person under 14. Another example is selling alcohol to a person under 18. Those are all broadly similar offences and it would be wrong to single out the illegal sale of tobacco as warranting a higher maximum penalty and to impose a fine equivalent to that of a level 5 offence such as selling a firearm to an under-age child. I hope that we can agree on the uprating to £1,000 which will automatically be achieved under the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Alan Williams: While I accept those parallels, is not there a case for possible compromise here? The lower figure that the Minister suggests could be relevant in a first offence and the higher figure suggested by

my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) could be relevant in repeat offences, so that we get at the retailer who does not take proper care.

Mr. Lloyd: There is a similar difficulty with the level of offence in the proposals for enhanced and daily penalties. Most enhanced penalties for some re-offences have been abolished. Both enhanced and daily penalties place an emphasis on repetition, which tends to be at odds with the approach in the Criminal Justice Bill for the penalty to reflect the gravity of the offence and not the offender's record.
The Bill provides for magistrates or sheriffs to impose fines of up to £20,000. The normal maximum fine usually available to magistrates and sheriffs in summary cases is £2,000. Extensions of these normal sentencing powers are exceptional and I do not think that they are justified for this offence. The penalty of £1,000 is quite sufficient for repetitious offences, too. Judging by the experience of the courts with the present level of penalty, a first offence would not result in the maximum penalty being imposed. However, I have no doubt that the courts would take it into account if the law had been flouted frequently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North mentioned vending machines and I also have some difficulty with the provisions of the Bill affecting sales from such machines. Their effect would be to restrict the availability of legitimate purchases from vending machines for adult smokers and to remove the convenience and security of that means of sale, despite the fact that there is no evidence of widespread purchases from machines by the under-aged.
I know that supporters of the Bill argue—indeed, the hon. Member for Warley, East said this—that if over-the-counter sales were restricted further by the other provisions of the Bill, there would be a danger of vending machines becoming a soft target for the under-16s. That is their reason for including this provision and I have some sympathy for the logic of their arguments. As far as it is possible to ascertain, there have been no court orders under the existing law to remove machines because of under-age use. That is certainly not proof of the ineffectiveness of the present legislation, but it is consistent with its being observed. That also points to the effectiveness of the guidelines adopted by cigarette vending machine operators, which require them to site machines so that they can be monitored by a responsible person.
However, I want to consider further the wording used for the present offence of selling from vending machines to decide whether it needs tightening and I think that that was also the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North.

Mr. Stern: I wish to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the possibility that the offence of a minor purchasing cigarettes from a vending machine could extend to areas where it has not previously applied, which is not in the Bill. For example, given the welcome trend of family rooms on licensed premises and the fact that many vending machines on licensed premises are placed where they cannot be supervised by the barman at all times, is not there a danger that any additional offence introduced will need to be extended further than suggested in the Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right; the implications of this clause need to be thought through. I hope that the House, and especially the hon. Member for Warley, East,


will understand that I cannot simply ignore the clause's impact upon the industry. The practical effect of new subsections (1B) to (1D) would be that machines sited in unlicensed premises such as cinema foyers, cafes and amusement arcades would have to be removed. According to the vending machine industry, that represents about 20 per cent. of sites—probably about 30,000 machines. That is a much more significant proportion of outlets than the 5 per cent. suggested by the supporters of the Bill.
I do not know which figure is more correct, but I believe that the number is considerably higher than 5 per cent. —whether it is 20 per cent. is a matter we can argue in Committee—and represents a substantial proportion of that section of the vending business. Even with licensed premises, machines would have to be removed from other areas to the bars, placing a considerable burden on the operators and site owners. I feel that we must consider this part of the Bill very carefully so that we know what we are doing.
Let me now look at what I believe—and I think that the hon. Member for Warley, East also believes—is the crux of the Bill: the means whereby it is proposed to endorse these measures. As we have already seen, clause 1 sets out various offences relating to the sale of cigarettes to young persons; it also makes it a duty for every local authority to ensure that those provisions are complied with. The clause sets out a number of actions that a local authority should take for that purpose. It also requires an authority to prosecute, or take other steps, in every case in which it is satisfied that a person has not complied with the law. Moreover, each local authority will be required to produce an annual report of its activities. Clause 6 also requires every local authority to bring proceedings or take steps to deal with the offences set out in clauses 3, 4 and 5, which I shall come to later.
This is just the broad outline of what each local authority will be required to do if the Bill, in its present format, becomes law. Let us look at what that means in a little more detail. First, there is the question of placing a duty on local authorities. Extra duties imply the need for extra resources and I am not convinced that local authorities should lose their discretion to decide their own priorities. They know the local circumstances, and how the situation at grassroots level suggests that their finite resources should best be used; even if they have extra resources, those resources are still finite.
I think that we would all readily admit that local authorities often have to make difficult expenditure choices, and that would not be made any easier by a piece of legislation that dictates to them that they must keep a constant vigil on the activities of tobacconists in their area. That is not to denigrate the importance of preventing children from taking the first steps towards what may become a lifetime's habit—far from it. However, we need to consider the matter rationally in the light of other calls on local authorities' time and money, which are equally important.
Can we, at one remove, say that this duty should have priority over, for example, the new responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 or the overseeing of safety standards in public places? I do not believe that we can, but that is what the Bill would do and for that reason I argue against

placing a rigid duty on local authorities. I was encouraged by the assertion by the hon. Member for Warley, East that he did not intend to place onerous burdens on authorities.
The clause allows local authorities little or no discretion on how they approach the problem. They must carry out periodic surveys of the premises in their area where tobacco is sold; they must investigate every complaint made to them about a suspected offence, serious, frivolous or vindictive; and they must prosecute or take other steps if they are satisfied that an offence has taken place. That leaves no room for manoeuvre.
Moreover, the process must be constant. That does not tie up with what I know of how local authorities handle such matters. It is common practice in several areas of what might be called consumer responsibilities—each in its way extremely important to the health and well-being of the public—for a local authority, again bearing in mind its finite resources, to decide to make an onslaught on a particular area of non-compliance.
It may, for example, resolve to impose a blitz on dangerous heavy goods vehicles. To that end, money will be spend on publicity, spot checks and, where necessary, prosecutions. Such a campaign might last three months or so, the follow-up work perhaps even longer. Another campaign may address the problems of the sale of unroadworthy cars or dangerous toys, or a lack of access for the disabled. The way in which the clause is worded would not allow local authorities to adopt such a cycle of enforcement activities, returning to each from time to time.

Mrs. Gorman: Are not there many other activities in which it is illegal for young people to take part—for instance, drinking, driving and even sexual activities? Are we to ask local authorities to bring in massive numbers of extra staff to enforce the law against such activities? Which of their duties are the most important?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that all those responsibilities are important, but the level of importance will vary from time to time and from place to place. It is up to local authorities to judge. The Bill, however, demands a constant maximum level of activity to deal with this one problem, at the expense of periodic campaigns against others. That strikes the Government as wrong. Smoking is an important problem, but it is unlikely to require unremitting enforcement activity. As with other matters, periodic blitzes would be just as effective and would leave resources free for authorities to deal with other problems—as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) suggests.
At the same time as attempting to put a straitjacket on local authorities, the clause leaves the precise nature of what they are expected to do surprisingly unclear. New subsection (1G)(a), for instance, requires a local authority
to carry out periodic surveys of the premises in its area at which tobacco is sold".
I had supposed that that meant an inspector visiting each of the premises to see what precautions had been taken to inform the public of the law and to prevent sales to children; I find, however, that what is really intended is for children to be deployed to enter shops asking to buy cigarettes to test shopkeepers' honesty. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warley, East, will correct me if I have been misinformed, but that is not what the Bill says; nor do I believe that local authorities would construe it in that way.

Mr. Faulds: In the preparation of Bills of this kind, we all leave certain lacunae that need examining and correcting. I am sure that this is one of them and that we can come to very happy terms when we discuss it in Committee.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive intervention. If that is what the clause is designed to cover, I believe that it needs further discussion. We have not debated the point yet, but I do not believe that the majority of hon. Members would want to insist on children being used in that way, however useful it might be in catching lawbreakers.

Mr. Alan Williams: If the clause does not mean what the Minister fears it means, has he any objection to its remaining in the Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it is sensible to incorporate in legislation requirements from which local authorities cannot resile, especially when it is not clear what they are expected to do.
Let me now deal to the requirement in new subsection (1H) for local authorities to produce an annual report of their activities under the previous subsection. I am afraid that my heart sank at the phrase
It shall be the duty of every local authority to produce an annual report".
Is this to be another unwanted report that is read by only the very few with a special interest in its contents? If it is to be no more than an annual publication held in the local authority's office for those who wish to see it, it will have little impact.
There will, however, be a heavy cost in bureaucracy. That, coupled with the cost of the other requirements, may be disproportionately high in comparison with the number of offenders punished and the number of children deterred from taking up smoking. I cannot accept that the requirement to produce an annual report will spur local authorities into taking action, although I think that we should give some thought to what information on prosecutions and warnings in this regard should be available to councillors and interested local people and parents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) made a convincing point when she said that guilty retailers would take notice of local publicity. I must nevertheless also applaud the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who pointed out that we should not forget that there are many honest and responsible retailers.
Local authorities have the power to prosecute those who sell tobacco to children, yet some local authorities have expressed their doubts about that. I recognise that that may be a factor in their reluctance to enforce the law. In order to dispel their doubt and to raise the profile of the case for nipping the smoking habit in the bud, the Government ought to remind local authorities of their powers.
There is scope for guidance on best practice in this importance enforcement task. That could be produced, in consultation with all the relevant bodies. Although I may be averse to annual reports, I see the value of making a proper, thorough and independent assessment of how local authorities, both individually and collectively, have acted on the advice.
In this way, I believe that local authorities would be assured of their powers and, if given the necessary help and advice to encourage them, would take steps to stamp out the abuses in the area. That seems to me to be more effective than the rigid, elaborate but, as I said, surprisingly unfocused machinery that the Bill would provide. I am glad that the hon. Member for Warley, East is happy to look again at the matter.
Finally, I must draw the House's attention to a defect in the Bill. It would impose exactly the same duty on both county and district councils, and in Scotland on regional and district councils. If one set of bureacracy is misguided, two superimposed sets of overlapping requirements are more than twice as bad.
The hon. Member for Warley, East rightly mentioned the mean and shabby practice, referred to by several hon. Members, of selling single cigarettes to children. I am more than happy to join him in condemning a practice that is deeply irresponsible and, of course, illegal—as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay rightly pointed out. Fortunately, the evidence available suggests that the practice is rare, but we need to eliminate it completely. I am not convinced that clause 3 helps.
As the sale of all tobacco products to children is already illegal, the effect of the clause is merely to make it illegal to sell single cigarettes to adults. The sale of single cigarettes to adults must represent a very small proportion of total sales. The practice occurs mainly in hotels, clubs and restaurants, where customers are offered a cigarette at the end of their meal.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's contention that the passage of this part of the Bill would underline the House's repugnance at the sale of single cigarettes to children, but I am not sure that to introduce an unnecessary new legal requirement would be either sensible or effective. If it were worth while to do so, why confine it to retail sales? The practice of older children buying a packet of cigarettes legally and selling the contents singly to their under-age friends is just as reprehensible. It is also just as illegal.
The Government are currently implementing the European Community tobacco products labelling directive, which requires health warnings and other information to appear on cigarette packets. The directive states that the labelling requirement that it sets out cannot be altered by member states. If enacted, therefore, the Bill would be struck down by the European courts. We should be in breach of the directive's requirements by requiring manufacturers in other EC member states to put an additional warning on cigarette packets destined for the United Kingdom market. It would therefore be impossible effectively to enact this part of the Bill.
I have doubts also about the usefulness of the proposed warning. It might detract from the health warnings, which, in the Government's view—certainly in my view—are crucial. I suspect that some young people would be only too glad to show their friends a product that they had acquired which carried a label implying that it had been sold to them illegally.
As part of its campaign to inform retailers about the law, the tobacco industry has provided them with warning notices to display in each tobacco outlet. They are widely displayed. The industry deserves credit for what it has already achieved. However, clause 4(4)(5) and (6) ought to ensure 100 per cent. coverage. With that desirable end in view, the Government are happy to accept the requirement.
Clause 5 represents something of a departure from the rest of the Bill as it is not directly concerned with preventing illegal sales of tobacco to children. I am not convinced that heavy action on tobacco advertising at the point of sale is justified. It may therefore help if I sketch in part of the background.
For many years, successive Governments have controlled tobacco advertising by means of voluntary agreements with the industry. The most recent, signed in 1986, significantly enhanced the previous controls. It introduced new health warnings, a ban on cinema advertising and a range of measures designed to protect young people. The right way forward is to continue with that approach.
Voluntary controls provide flexibility. The current system, for example, includes a range of controls administered by the Advertising Standards Authority on what can and cannot be said in an advertisement. This is a difficult area to regulate by legislation, when even total bans can be evaded, as other European Community member states have found.
To single out shop front advertising for such a total ban would be inconsistent with the controls in other areas. Measures in this area may threaten the voluntary system as a whole. At this stage, therefore, my reaction is that the proposal is unjustified.

Mr. Alan Williams: By the time the Bill is considered in Committee, will the Department try to obtain information about the number of retailers who combine the selling of sweets and chocolates with the sale of tobacco? That information will influence our view on whether the point of sale is highly relevant or marginal.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether we shall be able to ascertain the precise numbers, but I shall try to do so. The right hon. Gentleman's experience will tell him, as mine tells me, that a large number of outlets sell both tobacco and sweets. It is a point to which I shall return. However, it leads to a different conclusion from that which the right hon. Gentleman implied in his question.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not known that tobacco companies offer to redecorate the front of a newsagent's shop and to put his name above it, and even an awning, provided that, say, the words "Benson and Hedges" also appear by the side of the newsagent's name? By providing a free shop front for the newsagent the tobacco companies are also getting a free advertisement. Ought not the Bill to contain a provision to prevent that happening without contravening Common Market rules?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I shall deal with it later; if I do not do so, perhaps he will remind me.
International evidence suggests that the United Kingdom's approach to tobacco control and health education is proving successful. We have the second best record in the EC on reducing smoking. Only the Netherlands, which has adopted a similar strategy, has done better. Italy and Portugal, the two member states which introduced total bans on tobacco advertising, have not made significant progress in reducing smoking

prevalance. It is anomalous to ban shop front advertising while allowing it to continue in newspapers, magazines and posters.
There are further anomalies in the clause. Apart from the fact that, once inside a shop, a child could be exposed to unrestricted advertisements, provided they are not visible from outside, there is another anomaly. A specialist tobacconist would commit a criminal offence if he advertised his wares on the outside of his shop. I wonder whether the definition of "advertisement" in the Bill means that a tobacconist would risk prosecution if he displayed a cigarette packet in his shop window.
A final anomaly—I expect that we shall carefully consider others in Committee—is that the licensee of a public house would be liable to a fine of £2,000 if he displayed an advertisement for tobacco or for a tobacco-sponsored event that could be seen from outside his pub.
We must consider the effect of the clause on shopkeepers. There are many small shopkeepers, notably newsagents—this is the point that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made—whose shop fascias incorporate tobacco advertisements. Often, tobacco companies helped to finance the capital cost of their shops. The Bill would make those advertisements illegal and shopkeepers would, at their own expense, have to remove or replace them or to cover them up in some way. I am concerned about the possible implications of that for some small shopkeepers, whose viability is already in balance, especially as I believe that the extra cost is unlikely to help to safeguard children in any real sense.
Many of these shops, whether they be in rural areas or inner cities, are extremely important to the local communities they serve. I do not want to labour the point too much, but I emphasise that, as drafted, the clause would cause considerable dislocation and expense without helping to safeguard children. It would ignore the point-of-sale material in the bulk of shops where children, very properly, buy sweets and magazines. We must carefully consider the clause.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of work that shows that the presence of small shops dotted around a neighbourhood is an extremely important safety factor? It means that there are eyes and ears at street level, particularly where children and old people are moving about, which adds to the safety of the streets. Closing small shops, or making them close, adds to the dangers on our streets.

Mr. Lloyd: I have not seen that formal research, but my hon. Friend makes a sensible point. If the research suggests that, it coincides with common sense.
I have spoken at length because I want to make clear what parts of the Bill I shall concentrate the Committee's attention on if the House decides that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, as I hope it will. I hope that the House will forgive me if that has taken a considerable time, but I thought it only fair to the hon. Member for Warley, East and his friends to give a clear insight into the Government's concerns.
I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the Bill and his determination to get it on to statute book, and he has demonstrated both today. I hope that he will accept that I want the Bill to pass into law, but that I believe that it will better serve the purposes that we want


to see—the protection of children under 16—if it is amended. Amendments will be necessary if the Bill is to avoid unnecessary and unproductive difficulties for local authorities, innocent retailers and others.
I shall be glad to discuss these matters further with the hon. Gentleman before the Committee stage, in the hope that we may understand each other's concerns and find some agreement. Indeed, as he explained to the excellent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, he is an accommodating and reasonable man, so I am optimistic.
I must again stress that legislation will never be the complete answer. We also need to raise public awareness and to ensure that retailers have a lively understanding of their responsibilities. I should like the campaign groups such as Parents Against Tobacco to work alongside local authorities, the police, retailers and the tobacco industry, in partnership and as a conscience and a stimulus. That point lay at the kernel of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North. We must continue our determined efforts to warn young people about the long-term but appallingly real dangers of smoking. That triple track is the best way forward. Indeed, it is the only way to protect young children from the seduction of tobacco.

Miss Joan Lestor: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on his Bill. Most of us and many parents outside the House see the importance of the issue. We are aware that present legislation, however well intentioned, is not working. The Bill's purpose is to close the loopholes and make us all more vigilant.
I thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I am a sponsor of the Bill and I believe that his speech revealed his thinking and where some difficulties exist. The Bill has implications for four Departments: the Home Office—I am here as a member of the shadow Home Office team—and the Departments of Trade and Industry, the Environment and Health. I imagine that discussions will have to be held with them as we move into Committee.
I should like to take up one general point which has been made by some people who are sceptical or who have doubts about trying to control the sale of cigarettes and tobacco to young people because of the difficulty of identifying their age. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made that point. Of course, it is difficult to tell a person's age. One may approve or disapprove of the way in which some evidence has been collected—using young children or waiting until they come out of a shop and identifying them. Shopkeepers can tell the difference between a girl of seven, eight or nine and one of 15 or 16 and between a boy of 11 and one of 15.
Pubs have always had difficulty in deciding how old girls or boys of 16 or 17 are, but there is no excuse for a shopkeeper selling to a child who is obviously under age. It is no excuse to say, "It is difficult to decide how old a person is. Let everyone carry an identity card." My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East was right when he said that only a minority of shopkeepers deliberately flout the law. Most of them are aware of their responsibilities. When the law is deliberately flouted, we must act.
The hon. Member for Billericay said that children do all sorts of things when they are under age. I think that she

said we all did. I was a model child and I did not do anything before I should have. Under-age children drink. People under 16 have sex, but shopkeepers do not sell them sex—that is the difference. In this case, the law is being broken by a shopkeeper who sells the offending material. Whatever one does in other respects, there is never an excuse.
I never understand people who say, "If you do this, that happens, so you cannot catch that person." Let us see what we can do in the interests of children. This is not an anti-smoking Bill; it is an anti-children-smoking Bill to safeguard children and prevent them from becoming addicted to a habit which many parents wish they had not started. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) asked where the parents and the schools were. Schools can do a great deal, but many parents who smoke recognise that they are bad examples to their children. Because they became addicted, possibly before they were 18, they find it difficult to break the habit. We all have responsibility in this matter and we cannot narrow it down to parents, schools or shopkeepers. The tobacco industry has a responsibility.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: The hon. Lady has opened up an interesting point. I am sure that she is aware of the difficulty of identifying the age of children. That was shown clearly in a recent survey in the west midlands. It was shown that children as young as 11 or 12 were able to obtain videos that were aimed at the over-18s and that it was difficult to identify under-age drinkers. The survey also considered the Portman group's work in introducing identification cards for young people. Does the hon. Lady consider that that reinforces the case that, if we have increasing problems in identifying age, we should examine more closely the introduction of identification cards?

Miss Lestor: I do not want to pursue that point as it is not part of my responsibilities. I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I know that on several occasions in my area, young people have been refused service in public houses unless they can produce evidence of their age. That is not an argument for identity cards, but for saying that shopkeepers and others can protect themselves by saying, "I'm not sure about your age. Go home and produce some evidence of it." I know that some responsible shopkeepers do that.
The essential issue of responsibility lies at the heart of the debate. There is the responsibility of parents to teach children how to avoid harm. There is the responsibility of cigarette and tobacco manufacturers to promote their products in such a way as to avoid the brainwashing of young, vulnerable minds. There is also the responsibility of retailers to obey the law and the responsibility of the Government and of all in the House to ensure that the laws that we pass are effective, that they can be carried out, that they can be backed up and that they are based on sound principles.
It is no good to quote previous legislation that has failed to do what we intended. The Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 was an example of a reasonable law that was disarmed and sabotaged partly by lack of funding and partly by lack of back-up. We often pass laws—and the Children Act 1989 may be an example—in which we tell local authorities that they have added responsibilities and a greater need to act to protect children, but that we do not have any more money for them to do that. The local


authorities that want to carry out their responsibilities are in danger of being poll tax-capped. Perhaps the new changes will deal with some of those problems. We do not have the right to pass legislation without backing it up effectively, because it will cost us a great deal of money. Ultimately, children who are addicted to smoking will cost us a great deal more than the money spent now in trying to prevent them smoking—and the addiction will cost those children a great deal more money.
No responsible or caring parent would willingly place a cigarette between the lips of a child. No responsible or caring Government should stand by while someone else does so metaphorically by selling cigarettes to under-age children. To sell cigarettes to such children is to entice them along the path of nicotine addiction.
I find it difficult to believe that shopkeepers do not understand their responsibilities and the legal position. After today, they should be in no doubt and I should have thought that they were well aware of their position after our previous debate. If ignorance has been the shopkeepers' excuse, we can launch a campaign to ensure that they know their legal responsibilities. After the few prosecutions, some shopkeepers have said that they did not know the legal position or that they were not quite sure about it.
We require that notices be displayed and they should be displayed prominently rather than being hidden behind advertisements for cigarettes, as often happens. All of us can do our own survey. Hon. Members will find it far easier to detect an advertisement for cigarettes in shops than to detect the notice that says that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone under 16. That is wrong.
Although I have been discouraged by the small number of prosecutions, I realise that local publicity is bad for the local retailer. Retailers do not want the bad publicity of people knowing that they sold cigarettes to young children. A prosecution was brought in the area of Wandsworth in which I lived. We all walked past the shop that has been identified and I am sure that the shop lost trade as a result. Although such shopkeepers are in a minority, we should not be soft on those whom we identify as having behaved in such a way.
It is an easy way out simply to blame the shopkeeper. If we say in the House, as we have said in previous legislation, that selling cigarettes to young people is wrong, we cannot at the same time wash our hands of any responsibility to implement that legislation. The survey of chief constables carried out by Parents Against Tobacco shows that over the years there has been confusion about whether prosecutions are the responsibility of the police or of local authorities. Some local authorities said that they thought it was the responsibility of the police because the authorities did not have the resources or, as the Minister said, were carrying out a blitz on something else at the time. Other authorities genuinely thought that it was a matter for the police. The Bill makes it clear where responsibility lies and if it is enacted we would expect to see either a cutting down in the sale of cigarettes to young people or more prosecutions by local authorities, which would be clear about what they were doing.
This should not be a matter of local priorities. It is understandable that local authorities say, "This week we shall look at a particular aspect of the law and next week

we shall look at something else" —resource and employment implications are involved. But an issue as important as the health and welfare of children cannot simply be left to be decided according to the priorities of a local authority.

Mr. Stern: I am not necessarily disagreeing with the hon. Lady, but could she clarify one point? If the Bill imposes additional duties on local authorities that will cost money, how does she think that they should get round the problems that she has outlined? Is she suggesting that local authorities should be given a specific grant to be spent solely on the measures contained in the Bill? If not, how does she suggest we avoid the problem of priorities?

Miss Lestor: I am too old a hand to start making policy while on my feet at the Dispatch Box. I am not empowered to say what we should or should not do; it is the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, not mine, but it is important to look at the funding of local authorities. That was the point I was making about the Children Act 1989—if we pass legislation, we should ensure that it is effective. Authorities will put forward the excuse, sometimes genuine, that they do not have the resources to carry out the legislation. The Bill contains resource implications and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East has ignored that. There are always different priorities, but, in my book, protecting young children from tobacco is a high priority. We cannot allow legislation and the implementation of previous legislation on smoking and young people to hinge on where they happen to live or the priorities of their local authority—the legislation should be applied nationwide so that people know exactly where they are. We need to be steered from central Government to ensure that children are deterred and prevented from smoking under age.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) mentioned the responsibility of schools. He was right; our schools do not do enough about health education. When teachers and others are involved in health education they like to feel that they are backed by the community outside and what is happening where the children live, and that their efforts are not sabotaged. Young people are susceptible and affected by advertisements. It is put forward as glamorous and chic to smoke. If we are to have a programme of health education and smoking—I wish that we did more in our schools—we must ensure that it is not sabotaged when youngsters leave school and go into the wider community, where there is not such a keen desire to prevent them from smoking.
Many people have given figures today. We know that three out of four smokers are addicted before their 18th birthday. Young people spend a tremendous amount of money on smoking and little of that is ploughed back by the industry into health education aimed at children. We need to de-glamorise smoking, particularly among women and young girls. The effect of smoking on young girls who bear children is particularly lethal. It affects the baby's size and health and can have other repercussions. Although the effects of smoking on boys and young men are just as important for other reasons, it is very important that we should consider what is happening to young girls.
Smoking has increased among young girls recently. A new booklet published by Action on Smoking and Health, which will receive more publicity later, examines the way in which women's magazines highlight smoking. Although


we may be talking about women, we must remember that young girls read their mother's magazines. The way in which young women are being targeted for smoking in many ways which I believe flout the law—though that is another matter—is something we must consider. Smoking affects other people as well as the smoker.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not the case that many young girls are frightened of putting on weight if they stop smoking? That idea has become a shibboleth among young women. They believe that they will put on weight if they stop smoking. Many of them would like to stop smoking, but that fear prevents them from doing so. We need to educate those young women.

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend is right and I know how those young women feel. I understand the over-emphasis on what is glamorous in our society and what is acceptable. That is another link between what young people do and how they want to look.
We cannot present the anti-smoking campaign for children in isolation, because it is always linked to something else. It is linked to being glamorous, smart, a man-about-town or to being slim and so able to wear certain kinds of clothes. People who promote that attitude have a responsibility.
The figures have already been referred to and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not quote the figures in great detail. Reference has also been made to easy access to vending machines. The Bill deals with ways in which that access can be restricted. I believe that those machines should be restricted no matter what difficulties that may place on the industry. We always hear a great deal about how the fall in cigarette sales affects the industry. However, the promotion of the sale of cigarettes and of smoking has a profound effect on the resources needed to counter the effects of smoking and to deal with the illnesses, death and waste in our society resulting from smoking.
The Minister referred to work in other countries and we must consider what they are doing in relation to vending machines and advertisements to see how successful they have been. Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Spain have been more effective than we have in dealing with advertisements and vending machines. Some American states which have been encouraged by success in other states are increasing and enlarging their activities in that respect. Similar action is being taken in New Zealand and in Canada. We can consider many examples and weigh up the way in which we should proceed in relation to vending machines and the banning of certain kinds of advertisements.
Another point that I am not sure has been made yet is that the Health Education Authority has pointed out that there is a strong interaction between smoking among young people and experimenting with drugs later on. There can be no doubt from the evidence that there is a connection there. Therefore, we have a responsibility to try to curb that before it develops into something that is difficult to control.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) quoted me and it was a good quote so I shall refer to it as well. She said that children who begin smoking have no idea of the degree of addiction that they will face. They take up smoking because they think that it is glamorous and they are encouraged by examples,

particularly in sport. That is wrong, because it links smoking to being fit and we all know that the opposite is the case.
Young people have no idea of the degree of addiction to which they will be subjected if they start smoking, perhaps behind the bicycle sheds as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said he did. Young people believe that they can stop smoking and that they will be different from everyone else.
In 1988 the United States surgeon general stated that children between the ages of 12 and 17 who smoke cigarettes daily are 100 times more likely to use cocaine than children of that age who have not smoked cigarettes. There are enormous health risks and implications if we do not try to grasp the nettle and curb the availability of cigarettes to children and young people. The responsibility is not just to one group in society; it is to all groups. It is wrong that, over the years, we have passed legislation to try to deal with the problem and it has proved to be ineffective, and we have sat back and done very little about it.
Obviously, there are some loopholes in the Bill. Some points will need to be examined. However, in the past there have been so few prosecutions and the fines have been so low that people have been prepared to flout the law and operate a very lethal traffic. It is time the House took the Bill on and tried to close the present loopholes and so safeguard our children from nicotine addiction.

Mr. Alan Amos: I have raised the issue of smoking and the dangers of tobacco for the smoker and the non-smoker three times in the House over the past 12 months. I am therefore delighted to be a sponsor of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to provide greater protection for our children. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on coming first in the ballot, taking up the cause and speaking so well. There is no doubt that the overriding benefit of the measure will be the health of future generations.
I am constantly amazed that some members of the public continue to deny and refute the overwhelming force of medical and scientific evidence that smoking damages health. That is even more worrying when we realise that 23 per cent. of girls and 17 per cent. of boys are regular cigarette smokers at the age of 15. We know that children become aware of cigarettes at an early age and that three out of four children are aware of cigarettes before they reach the age of five, whether or not their parents smoke, which is probably something to do with all the tobacco sponsorship that is seen on television.
At 10 years, as many as 40 per cent. of boys and 28 per cent. of girls have tried smoking, and about one third of regular smokers will have started before the age of nine. An Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report in 1986 found that the proportion of regular smokers increases sharply with age, from 2 per cent. of 12-year-olds to 23 per cent. of pupils aged 15 to 16—nearly a quarter of all children at school.
We know only too well about the dangers to health caused by cigarettes and we know that, each year, at least 110,000 people die prematurely and unnecessarily from diseases caused by smoking, either directly or indirectly, including people who do not smoke but are passive


smokers. That means 300 every day, 12 every hour, and one person every five minutes. That is the tragedy of it. Smoking causes 90 per cent. of the deaths from long cancer, 90 per cent. of the deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, 20 to 25 per cent. of deaths from heart disease, and one third of all cancer deaths. Of 1,000 young smokers who smoke 20 cigarettes or more a day, one will be murdered, and six will die in road accidents, but 250 will die prematurely because of their smoking. For each person who dies from the use of illegal drugs, more than 400 will die from the use of tobacco.
What is more worrying is the opportunity for further addiction and exposure to hard drugs which cigarette smoking provides. A recent survey by the Health Education Authority shows that more than half the children who smoke regularly have been offered drugs and half have tried them. That includes drugs such as cocaine, crack and heroin. By contrast, only 2 per cent. of children who never smoke have tried drugs. The same survey shows that among regular smokers 38 per cent. have tried cannabis, 11 per cent. have tried LSD, 10 per cent. have tried glue sniffing and amphetamines, 6 per cent. have tried ecstasy, 4 per cent. have tried cocaine and crack, 3 per cent. have tried tranquillisers and 2 per cent. have tried heroin. But 19 per cent.—nearly one in five—of children who smoke regularly have been offered LSD and 13 per cent. have been offered amphetamines and heroin.
Incidentally, the survey found that children who smoke not only drink more than children who do not smoke but are more likely to drink excessively and illegally if they themselves buy the alcohol. There is a direct connection. The ramifications of what we are talking about go far beyond just the smoking of a cigarette. That is unacceptable, yet, although many people agree about the dangers of hard drugs, they simply ignore the dangers both of the use of tobacco products and of the opportunities created for exposure to hard drugs. Smoking, by its link with more dangerous drugs, becomes even more unacceptable in our children and it is time to do something about it before more lives are lost.
I strongly support part I of the Bill, which is designed to increase the penalties for the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 16. I am sure that there will be a lively debate in Committee about what the penalties should be, but I do not doubt that they should be deterrent penalties that people will not want to face. I also strongly support part III, which prohibits the sale of unpackaged cigarettes, about which much has been said this morning.
A survey conducted by the British Journal of Addiction shows that, despite the 1986 Act, which made illegal the sale of cigarettes to persons under 16, the law is widely flouted. The survey found that young people have no difficulty buying cigarettes. Indeed, 85 to 95 per cent. of regular smokers under 16 admit that they buy their cigarettes from shops. More than 50 per cent. bought single cigarettes. Even more worrying is the fact that in 1988 only 27 per cent. of children who tried to buy cigarettes during that year said that they had been refused them at least once. The sales of cigarettes to children are estimated to be worth more than £90 million a year—a scandalous fact. The law is not being enforced if such a blatant disregard for children's health is so widespread.
An article in The Independent on 18 October 1990, entitled
Shops 'help children to smoke'
stated:
More than half of children who smoke daily are buying single cigarettes from shopkeepers who make huge profits from the illegal trade, a report claims. By splitting packs they can make up to £2·40 on 20 cigarettes priced at £1·50 …
In a Bristol school 80 per cent. of the children told researchers they bought single cigarettes. Authors of the survey, among 3,513 children of 14 and 15 in nine Bristol schools, say there is 'cynical flouting of the law by many shopkeepers who are acting straightforwardly as drug pushers'.
Martin Jarvis, of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Health Behaviour Unit, co-author of the study published in the British Journal of Addiction, said yesterday that sales of single cigarettes proved shopkeepers knew they were selling cigarettes illegally.
Dr. Ann McNeill, his co-author and smoking programme officer at the Health Education Council, said: 'The tobacco industry needs to recruit 300 new smokers a day to replace those who die. Children spend £70 million a year on tobacco. They learn to inhale very quickly and experience just the same withdrawal symptoms as adults.'
Single cigarette sales represent easy sales for many shops and are largely undetectable. We have had a long debate this morning about detectability and about the enforcement of legislation. Many shopkeepers appear to have little or no consideration for the health of the children they serve—children who probably live in their communities. The problem is wider than that. Many local authorities simply do not enforce the 1986 Act and some claim that it is the responsibility of the police. I have raised that issue in my constituency with the police and the local authorities. The assistant chief constable of Northumbria police said in a letter to me:
I accept that this is an important and emotive subject but in view of the competing demands upon the Police Service at this point in time, I regret that the legislation in question is of necessity given a low priority.
The Service is reactive in relation to this offence in that we would respond to any complaint received, but because of the priorities mentioned above, we do not usually take positive measures to enforce the legislation in other circumstances.
There have been no prosecutions under the Act at the Hexham sub-division. As Superintendent Bowyer told me
I share your concern about the whole question of youngsters smoking, but operationally it would be very expensive in terms of manpower to divert resources from other serious problems to detect and prosecute tobacco retailers. However, you can rest assured that my officers are aware of the problem and will act accordingly as and when the situation warrants.
The police understandably feel that it would be difficult to endorse the law, so they do not take positive measures or even attempt to do so.
The duty of enforcement should properly lie with local authorities, which have trading standards departments. Northumberland county council wrote to me last year stating:
Northumbria County Council has not to date pursued a policy of positive enforcement of these Acts. The Committee declined to undertake responsibility for the enforcement of the 1986 Act or to approve a Council policy prosecuting offenders under the Act.
However, the county council stated:
A very real obstacle perceived by the Committee in enforcing the legislation is the difficulty of gathering evidence and proving the offence(s). The Committee was opposed to the prospect of bringing children before the courts as witnesses.


All that from a county council which, I am pleased to say, supports the aims and objectives of Parents Against Tobacco.
The current law is no good. I believe that the Bill will deal directly and precisely with the problem and go some way to resolving it. I am prepared to admit that it will not lead to a 100 per cent. solution, but the existing legislation is being flouted or ignored. If we have legislation that is only 50 per cent. effective, it will represent tremendous progress. Let us think positive. Let us not emphasise all the problems and disadvantages and decide to do nothing. Let us do something in the hope that we shall achieve at least half of a total solution.
I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, by general agreement, my constituency is one of the most beautiful in the country. It is composed of many small rural communities and, therefore, has a higher proportion of village or corner shops than do constituencies in most other areas. That means that the incidence and effect of single cigarette sales, for example, may be disproportionately higher than elsewhere.
Under the terms of the 1986 Act, district councils were excluded as an enforcing authority for the purposes of the Act. I am delighted that part I addresses that problem and includes district councils in the list of enforcing authorities. I hope that the Bill's provisions for enforcement will make it simpler for the police to prosecute lawbreakers.
It is clear that the public overwhelmingly support an increase in prosecutions and vigilance by the police and local councils. In a recent MORI poll, 95 per cent. agreed that the law should be strictly enforced. We talk about priorities and whether we should have high or low penalties for other offences, but the public regard the selling of cigarettes to young people as a serious matter. There should be some exemplary prosecutions and sentences to deter others from committing the offence. If we set the offence and the attendant penalties too low at the outset, there will be no deterrent effect. The more bodies that are responsible for upholding the law, the more chance there is for the law to be upheld.
Part V deals with advertisements. It is designed to restrict the use of external advertisements on the outside of retail premises. Every hon. Member will have seen the advertisements that appear on the outside of almost all shop premises that sell tobacco or tobacco products. The advertisements usually promote an individual brand of cigarette.
Although it is difficult to prove directly and conclusively—very often nothing is conclusive in science that advertising cigarettes encourages children to start smoking, an article in the Health Education Journal in 1985 suggested that children tend to smoke the brands of cigarette that are promoted most heavily and that advertising reinforces the smoking habit. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, advertising also creates the impression that smoking is a socially acceptable norm. Impressionable children are led to a large extent by advertisements The fact that more girls than boys now smoke is a direct consequence of the pernicious and extremely heavy advertising that is targeted specifically on teenage girls' and women's magazines. It is outrageous. The advertisers know what they are doing and they get away with it. The advertisements are designed especially to attract young smokers.
The shady organisation called Freedom Association for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, which was set up by

and run as a smokescreen for the tobacco industry, claims that advertising does not entice children to smoke. That is an extraordinary claim for the tobacco industry's front organisation to make when the industry spends over £125 million a year on advertising. It must be as stupid as it is harmful. About £125 million is spent each year to try to persuade people, including young people and the adult population generally to smoke more heavily. There is general advertising and the advertising of specific brands. The industry advertises because it knows that it works. Advertising on the outside of premises is no exception. Cigarette manufacturers would not go to the expense of creating advertising signs and maintaining them if they were ineffective.
I recently received a letter from a consultant physician at a Newcastle general hospital—a man who obviously knows what he is talking about—who sent me a collection of photographs of just such advertising on shop fronts in my constituency. He wrote that the photographs
show the exteriors of typical village shops in Northumberland—the majority seem to carry cigarette advertising. They were taken on a single car journey from Wylam-Ovingham-Prudhoe. I hope they help your efforts in trying to protect our children from the attempts of cigarette companies to increase their sales at the expense of an enormous amount of subsequent human misery.
The Bill should be supported because it proposes to do something about that. It will enable children to enter shops without being bombarded by cigarette adverts on the outside of them.
The illegal market in cigarette sales has been estimated at £90 million a year. Shopkeepers claim that it is difficult to tell the age of children purchasing cigarettes and that, on other occasions, they believed that they were being purchased for adults. The hon. Member for Eccles was right to suggest, however, that if one had any doubts one should simply ask for identification or ask for a letter from the parents to confirm the age of their child. I recognise that shopkeepers have a difficult problem, but it is not insuperable.
How does that problem justify the sale of single cigarettes from broken packets? Obviously it does not. The advertising used by the tobacco companies is little more than a cynical attempt to ensnare children for life to their product. As The Independent said, the provision of single cigarettes reduces shopkeepers to little more than playing the role of drug pushers. Every attempt must be made to ensure that the maximum protection is afforded to our young people.
We must recognise that more than £500 million is spent by the NHS to care for patients suffering from largely self-inflicted illnesses caused by the effects of smoking. From lung cancer and cancers associated with the mouth, throat and larynx to other respiratory diseases, smoking causes untold misery, suffering and worry for thousands of people, who suffer needlessly. Smoking also causes circulation problems that can lead to amputation of limbs, as well as an increased risk of strokes and heart disease—currently the largest killer in the United Kingdom.
I sincerely believe that the Government must do everything they can to prevent such suffering by helping those most at risk—children under 16. The Bill will be an enormous help in the continual battle for the health of future generations. As well as investing large sums to promote good health and preventive practices, the Government must support the Bill as a means of protecting our children.
I accept that the Bill is not perfect and that it will be flouted. However, let us go as far as we can to catch some of those responsible. We shall never catch all of them, as no law is perfect, but we should not seek to find excuses, problems and other reasons for doing nothing. That is a recipe for disaster and if we did that we should be abdicating our responsibility.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to participate, and I do not want the Bill to disappear under a weight of words. I want it to go into Committee, so that any detailed improvements can be made to ensure that it gets on to the statute book.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that the Bill has limited aims. It is a minor, but important, piece of legislation. It does not extend, however, to banning tobacco sponsorship from, for example, sporting occasions. It does not address the cheating way in which the tobacco companies invade television and get round the ban on tobacco advertising by ensuring that sporting events are provided with a plentiful supply of banners advertising tobacco products.
The Bill will, I hope, apply only to a minority of retailers. I hope and believe that the majority of retailers are not so unscrupulous as to break up packets of cigarettes to sell them to young children under the age of 16 who perhaps get a thrill by doing something that they see as slightly illegal. We know that such sales are totally illegal.
Unfortunately, we have to recognise that a number of retailers put profit before the health of the children who come into their shops. That is quite unscrupulous and completely disgraceful. It is not surprising that, as has been described today, there is a link between illegal under-age drinking and illegal use of drugs. Once children become involved in an air of illegality, it follows that further illegality will be that much easier once the first hurdle has been overcome.
New section 7(1G) of the 1933 Act of the Bill has resource implications. Although clause 8 makes provision for increased expenditure arising out of the legislation, it is important that the Government recognise their duty to ensure that local authorities have the means, if necessary, to employ additional environmental health officers—who already visit a number of retail premises, many of which sell cigarettes—land to ensure that they have enough personnel to carry out the provisions of this modest legislation. The money has to be there, because local authorities are short of money at the moment.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Environment came to the Dispatch Box to talk about the poll tax support grant orders and he said that there was evidence of profligate spending. I have yet to hear of it. I do not suppose that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, would suggest for a moment that it is profligate to increase expenditure on the work of environmental health officers to ensure that such legislation is applied.
There is another aspect to this issue, which arose because of two tragedies which occurred in the Bradford area, when two teenagers inhaled solvents, and were asphyxiated and killed. As a result, I wrote to my local

authority in Bradford and it agreed that the environmental health officers would draw the dangers to the attention of retailers, in case there was any confusion in their minds—I suspect, alas, that there was not—about the sale of solvents to teenagers.
The police have also provided a useful service, as the Bradford South police division has distributed information to retailers. The local authority pointed out that it was willing to try to do this but that resources, in the form of the time of environmental health officers, are limited. That is clearly the case in most local authorities. Therefore, if we pass this legislation and if we wish it to be applied, the resources have to be available so that the environmental health officers—or whomever the local authority chooses—can visit retail premises and ensure that the legislation is carried out.
I see that the Minister is busy in conversation at the moment, but I remind him that the bugbear of much legislation, beginning with the Factories Act 1802, is application. That first piece of factory legislation was applied by magistrates, who did not have the least interest in ensuring factory standards. Since then, sufficient inspectors have had to be employed to ensure that factory legislation is applied. It is no different in this case and we must ensure that the Government provide the resources if they have any intention that such legislation should be applied.
This is a classic private Member's Bill, as was the legislation to prevent the sale of solvents to teenagers which is now an Act—although one could question how it is being applied. Let us not miss out on this useful piece of legislation which will remedy an important area of abuse and degradation for our young children. I will not go into all the ramifications, such as ill-health and even the curtailment of life, because many other hon. Members have already spelt them out. Let me say, however, that I believe that we should give councils—I am especially concerned about the district councils in my area—the powers contained in the Bill. I wish it well and thank the promoters for presenting it so well.
Let me follow the promoter's example: he was succinct and pointed, and, if other hon. Members emulate him, we can ensure that the Bill is passed today.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Like the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) I shall try to be succinct.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on introducing the Bill, to which I give my full support. There is no doubt, given what we have heard from the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and others, that the existing legislation is not being enforced and needs to be bolstered. Sadly, a considerable number of retailers are flouting the law by selling cigarettes to children under the age of 16.
Let me emphasise that, at least in Northern Ireland—and, I am sure, elsewhere in the United Kingdom—there are responsible tobacconists who refuse to sell children cigarettes. When we condemn those who do, we should remember that others uphold the law: we must not smear all retailers because some offend. But unless the offending retailers are made fully aware that enforcement agencies


are monitoring the sale of tobacco and are undertaking prosecutions, some tobacconists will continue to disregard the law.
I pay tribute to Parents Against Tobacco, which organised the campaign that prompted an increase in the number of prosecutions throughout the country under the existing law. Another aim of the campaign was to inform Parliament of the need for the law to be tightened.
During the campaign, a petition was mounted, and— certainly in Northern Ireland—many young people obtained signatures. That petition was addressed to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, asking them to take part in the ballot for private Members' Bills and to support the proposed legislation. I am happy to say that all those young people and the adults involved in the campaign came from both sides of the political divide and from all religious sectors. There is some hope for the future when we can all work together to improve the life of our community.
I met some of the schoolchildren who collected signatures for the petition and was deeply impressed by their zeal and their awareness of the dangers of tobacco to people of all ages, but especially to their own age group. Children are so easily tempted to smoke cigarettes. A plethora of advertisements entice them to take it up: everywhere they go, they see advertisements that make smoking seem attractive.
As we have heard, it has been estimated that 23 per cent. of girls and 17 per cent. of boys aged 15 are smokers. Some try it for a dare when they are that age or younger; others try it in imitation of their seniors—parents, relatives and teachers. Some children smoke because they see their pop or cinema idols doing so on either stage or screen. They take it as a signal to do the same.
The consequences of smoking regularly are grave. I shall not set them out at length, since the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) did so. Smoking is addictive and it takes its toll on the health of a young person. There is a suspicion that cigarette manufacturers want young people to become addicted in order to ensure steady tobacco sales. Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that most regular smokers acquire the habit in their teens. One in four cigarette smokers will die prematurely from cancer and other smoking-related diseases. In 1983, the Royal College of Physicians said:
One of the most effective strategies in reducing the cost of smoking would be to stamp out the epidemic at its source—in children.
We must make it known to others that tobacco is the primary cause of death in the United Kingdom. Cigarette smoking has even wider ramifications. It is a significant cause of ill health in the community and it places an intolerable burden on the national health service. The health warning on cigarette packets is inadequate. The fact that cigarette smoking, is a potential killer should be made absolutely clear on all cigarette packets. It should be impossible in this day and age for people to make a profit out of the misfortune of others.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the way in which the tobacco industry uses sponsorship of, say, sports events on television to promote cigarette smoking. Cigarette advertisements at sports events encourage young people to take up smoking. There should, therefore, be an absolute prohibition of sponsorship of sports events by cigarette companies.
All people must be warned of the dangers of cigarette smoking, but, above all, we must protect children under the age of 16. Every year, 100,000 people die prematurely from smoking-related diseases. That stark statistic should alarm us all. We must act now. The Bill would help us to protect young people.
The Minister said that legislation is not the complete answer, and I agree. However, if it resulted in the saving of a few lives, we should have done a worthwhile job. I agree with him, too, that greater public awareness of the dangers of tobacco smoking is required. The Government, local authorities, schools, parents—all of us—must fight to protect young people from the ills that flow from smoking tobacco.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As I listened to the sentiments expressed on the subject of tobacco smoking I began to wonder what it would have been like to sit here 100 years ago on a Friday morning. We should probably have been holding a debate about the evils of drink and the activities of the temperance movement. Efforts were being made then to stamp out the wicked propensity of human beings to drink themselves silly. They highlighted the fact that children were able to go into gin palaces and that they went round to the pub with their porter jug to obtain drink for their parents. They said that that had to be stopped. The temperance movement and alcohol was the big, bad wolf at that time. Today, it is tobacco. A well-organised body of pressure groups see their role in life as mending human nature by making us cut out the bad habit of smoking tobacco.
I do not smoke and gave up when I was about 14. I used to buy my three Wills Whiffs at the off-licence in the evening and smoke them in the coal shed, not behind the bicycle shed. I did not like it and gave it up. Human beings are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to indulge in that vice.
It is not true, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, that tobacco kills more people than anything else. The biggest killer among adults is heart attacks and stroke, which is due mainly to cholesterol and bad eating habits. Will we start banning cream buns? It is nonsense to suggest that tobacco is the worst habit and that developing it young will cause the nation enormous problems.

Ms. Harman: Does the hon. Lady challenge the medical and scientific evidence on the strong link between smoking and heart disease? Perhaps she will make it clear to the House whether she is the one hon. Member present today who does not accept all the medical and scientific evidence, not only from this country but from abroad? Does she accept that evidence, or does she take a different view?

Mr. Gorman: Does the hon. Lady accept the scientific evidence that butter and dairy products cause most of the problems of heart disease and that other products are responsible for forms of cancer? I am not advocating tobacco. I am saying not that it is good for people but that there is something odd about this place which attracts puritans who are pushovers for pressure lobbies that want to promote their views on how to mend humanity's ways.
We already have legislation making the sale of tobacco to under-16s illegal. The purpose of the Bill is not to prevent sales to under-16s but to push the idea that


tobacco should be made illegal for adults. We are trying to increase penalties so as to terrify tobacconists into not selling it, because the fewer the outlets, the less chance there will of people, adults as well as children, buying the stuff.
Many other products are bad for us, but it is fashionable to pick on tobacco. I do not smoke and I am not on the payroll of any tobacco company, but it is true that the tobacco companies take their responsibility about illegal sales to under-16s seriously. In the past few years, they have run a campaign costing £3·5 million to inform shopkeepers of their responsibility. Many shops—I quite often go into sweet shops and tobacconists to get my newspaper; they are useful local business men—display a notice saying that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to under-16s. It has been said several times this morning that there is a margin at which a 14 or 15-year-old may look older. Are we really saying that people who make that mistake should be liable to a fine of £2,000 and if they have slipped up once or twice, it increases to £20,000? We do not punish serious criminals as hard as that, but because tobacco is involved we make an example of offenders.
The motives of Parents Against Tobacco should be considered. If they are good parents, presumably they encourage their children to follow sensible habits, but Parents Against Tobacco are parents against those weak or bad parents who do not bring up their children properly. They are puritanical people who want to inflict their view of how to raise children on other people. That is one nasty aspect. They get most of their money from Action on Smoking and Health, another of the Des Wilson category of pressure groups. ASH is given money by the state, as are the Health Education Authority and many other bodies, to put across to the public the idea that smoking is silly because it is bad for people. We have heard about the cynicism of people who sell tobacco, but what about the cynicism of PAT, whose members are using children to get at adult smokers and those who sell tobacco? They are concerned not so much about children as about stopping us doing something of which they disapprove.
The Bill is likely to cause problems for respectable, worthy and useful people in society—the shopkeepers, mini-market proprietors, tobacconists, sweet sellers and newsagents who do a useful job. Selling tobacco is not a crime yet, although PAT and ASH would like to make it one. The temperance people outlawed booze, but people went on drinking it, just as people will go on smoking if they want to do so. The Bill will not stop young people getting cigarettes, because they will get them from their older brothers and sisters, because they will pinch them from their parents' cigarette packets or because they will smoke dog-ends from ashtrays. If people want to be naughty, they will find the necessary means. Legislation does not change human nature. Persuasion may.
Shopkeepers will bear the brunt of the measures. They are not to put up tobacco advertisements inside or outside their shops. Tobacco advertising is allowed elsewhere, so the shopkeepers will be penalised. A shopkeeper who owns a vending machine which a young person uses will be fined. The purpose of a vending machine it to sell something when no proprietor is standing by to make a sale. By definition, the proprietor cannot supervise that machine all

the time, yet if a young person buys a packet of cigarettes from one, the proprietor is liable to a fine of from £2,000 to £20,000. The principle is completely wrong.
Even the sale of cigarette papers to people under 16 is to become a crime. We are creating new categories of dangerous products as though they were dangerous goods such as Semtex or poison. The Bill contains much more than is required and is unnecessary because legislation already exists to deal with the problem.
Much has been said about who benefits. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said in an interesting intervention that more inspectors, enforcement officers, jobs for the local authority boys and much more money to enforce the legislation will be needed. It is already difficult to find money. The community charge for many people is over the top because some local authorities, especially Labour ones, like to have enforcement officers running around managing the nanny state.
The Bill is actually about more enforcement in our society and it is about reducing the rights of individuals to do what they like with their lives. Laws already exist for the protection of children. The important point, which has been raised, is that although there is legislation—and by and large, it is enforced—the fact there are few prosecutions is not because there are no people to catch those who sell tobacco to children, but because most people who sell tobacco obey the law in this respect. We shall not improve that position by adding penalties, which might be incurred through the intervention of agents provocateurs. Parents Against Tobacco sends people into shops to try to catch shopkeepers doing something wrong.
If the law is to be respected, it must be respectable. If we go over the top with legislation, we simply bring our activities into disrepute. The reason why the Bill will probably go into Committee—and so waste more of our time—is that we have to be seen to be on the side of those who want to try to stop us harming ourselves.
It is the job of parents to see that their children know what is right and wrong. It is the job of the law to see that the penalties are applied. We do not need more legislation to try to bring that about. That is not the object of the PAT people. They are trying to make tobacco in general illegal in the long term. Although I hate the stuff myself and I do not like people puffing smoke into my face, I should fight for the rights of individuals to be able to smoke tobacco if they want to.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does not she consider that her appraisal of the good work done so far by PAT is unjust? She spoke about the House going "over the top". Is not she in danger of going over the top?

Mr. David Winnick: That is all she can do.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My hon. Friend is totally at odds with public opinion. Has she taken the opportunity to speak to members of PAT to assess their reasons for campaigning?

Mrs. Gorman: The PAT people have made their views perfectly clear. PAT stands for Parents Against Tobacco, so I do not need to ask them why they are campaigning. My hon. Friend suggested that public opinion is fully behind them. How do I know that? I know only what people with vested interests tell me. In the same way, the


tobacco industry tells me that it is spending money to ensure that shopkeepers obey the law. I believe that the PAT people can make their own point.
My point is that people have a duty as parents, and parents do not need PAT to prompt them to tell their children what is good and bad for them. We already have legislation against young children being sold tobacco. We should not spend our time increasing penalties for shopkeepers who could sell tobacco innocently to a child who is technically under age. If that happens, reasonable fines are available to punish them. That is enough to stop such shopkeepers breaking the law again. To increase the fines and to introduce the penalties that some people have suggested leads me to question their motivation. The motivation of ASH is ultimately to outlaw tobacco and it is using children to try to advance its case.

Mr. Tom Cox: I have listened to some of the speeches made from both sides of the House today and if the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) had not spoken I do not think that I would have taken part in the debate. There have been some superb speeches and there is obviously general agreement and support for the Bill. I suppose that all hon. Members have a right to express their views—that is what democracy is about. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said while the hon. Member for Billericay was speaking, she only knows how to go over the top. Like any hon. Member talking on any Bill, she has a right to say why she objects, but she dismissed many aspects of the case against smoking that we know to have been proven.
The hon. Member for Billericay said that we should not bother with what those who are against children smoking say about its effect on health. She said that eating cream buns could be far more damaging than smoking 20 cigarettes a day—and I see she is nodding. A major London hospital, St. George's hospital, Tooting is in my constituency. The hon. Lady must have a hospital in the radius of her constituency. From my many visits to St. George's hospital, I have found that senior consultants repeatedly say that one of their great worries based on their wide medical experience, is the danger to health created by smoking. Of course, we agree that if someone eats certain foods it can be damaging, but nothing has been more clearly proved than the dangers of smoking, which is surely part of what the Bill is trying to prevent.

Mrs. Gorman: Alcohol is much, much more dangerous, not only to the individual but through the number of accidents and crimes that are directly related to alcohol abuse. Tobacco simply does not come into that class.

Mr. Cox: That is a matter of opinion. I do not dispute for one minute that, sadly, as we have seen over the Christmas holiday, if people drink to excess, they are a danger not only to themselves, but to many innocent people. I did not attend the statements by transport Ministers announcing the anti-drink campaign for Christmas, but it would have been interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Billericay took the view that if someone wants to drink, why should we stop him or her from doing it, to hell if anyone gets in the way and is knocked down, injured or killed. Would she say that

people should not be in the way of motorists exercising their freedom to have a good drink and drive a car? That is the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying.
Some hon. Members have been in the Chamber longer than I today and they have a right to be called. The hon. Lady made comments against Parents Against Tobacco and was challenged by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) about what kind of meetings and involvement she had had with that campaign. I understood the hon. Member for Billericay to ask why she should bother with representatives from that campaign because she knew what they were going to tell her. If that is the hon. Lady's idea of seeking consultation with interested parties, whatever the issue may be, it is not a good recommendation for her as a Member of this place. Surely, the real criterion for being a Member of Parliament, irrespective of what party, is to listen to the people we seek to represent.
We all know that there has been widespread opportunity for hon. Members, either within their own constituencies or through the campaigns by PAT that have taken place in and around Westminster, to meet and listen to what people are seeking to convey. I know, as I am sure the hon. Member for Billericay and every hon. Member knows, that we judge public opinion by the sort of postbag we receive. We always know when we receive a postbag telling us that people are not in favour of something. I have received about 70 letters on the Bill, which is not a bad number of letters for one issue. We receive even more letters on matters such as abortion when the postbag swells because there are two distinct opinions on abortion—in favour or against.
Not one of the letters that I received demanded that I should not support the Bill. All the letters warmly welcomed it. As hon. Members have said today, some issues should be discussed in more detail and those discussions should take place in Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Billericay referred to the persecution of shopkeepers. As other hon. Members have said, many shopkeepers fully obey the law. However, others sadly do not. There is widespread public support for this Bill and we have a duty to support it. What about drugs? If we know that illegal drugs are being sold, should we ignore that because that is what freedom of choice is all about?

Mrs. Gorman: Drugs are illegal.

Mr. Cox: Yes, we know that. However, whether or not they are illegal, we know that they are still being sold. Is the hon. Lady claiming that we should do nothing about drugs simply because they are illegal and therefore should not be sold or traded?
There is clear evidence of wide support for the Bill. As other hon. Members have said, some aspects of the Bill may require discussion. The Minister made the Government's thinking on the Bill very clear. We should give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and allow it to enter Standing Committee where it can be discussed in detail. That is how democracy in the country and in this House should be pursued.
I was a Government Whip for five years. At times I had to object to Bills of which I did not approve while at other times I had to object to Bills of which I did approve. However, until we have a system under which Bills like


this, which have enormous support among the general public, at least enter Committee and receive a fair hearing, we do a grave disservice to the people we try to represent.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on presenting the Bill and I welcome the wide support for it. I hope that no attempt will be made to prevent it going where it should go—into Committee for further dicussion.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I should declare a personal, but not a financial, interest in this matter. I am pursuing a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust and I am doing that with a tobacco manufacturing company. The object of the IPT is to give hon. Members a greater insight into the problems of an industry. Therefore, I may speak with a little more authority about the industry than I might otherwise have done and that may be a good thing for Parliament generally. I have the advantage of knowing how the industry operates and the constraints that it faces. Most hon. Members have had the benefit of the helpful briefing from the Tobacco Advisory Council in relation to this Bill.
There can be little objection to the Bill. Its express motive is correct. No sensible person can properly object to decent safeguards to protect children from what is basically an adult habit. The Retail Consortium has made it clear that it strongly condemns the minority who break the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) referred to all the retailers who break the law. We need a sense of proportion here. A small minority of retailers break the law, but we should recognise that the vast majority are conscientious and the last thing they want to do is to sell cigarettes to under 16-year-olds.
My regret is that the Bill has been drafted by people in the anti-smoking movement. It therefore has the hidden agenda of trying to stop smoking altogether, not necessarily to protect children, which I and the tobacco industry accept must be done, but to use children for the main anti-smoking purpose of the Bill. Having listened to hon. Members, it is quite clear that that is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Sims: No.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend says no. I am not trying to suggest that all hon. Members have that purpose, but many people do, including some of the promoters of the Bill.
I was sorry to learn that, before the drafting of the Bill, Parents Against Tobacco made no approach to discuss with the tobacco industry how proper safeguards such as those in the Bill could be more usefully improved. Instead, all we have had in its briefings is emotive and often inappropriate language against the tobacco industry. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), to whose speech I listened with great care and interest, said that the tobacco industry gets £90 million a year from the sale of tobacco to children. It might have been more helpful and honest if PAT, which presumably briefed the hon. Gentleman with that statistic, pointed out that that £90 million is out of a total of £7,500 million a year. It might

have been more helpful and honourable if it had also pointed out that 73 per cent. of that £90 million goes to the Exchequer.
From my study of the tobacco industry, I believe that it has done the most to prevent the sale of tobacco to children. Since 1986, the industry has conducted a campaign reminding retailers of their duties under the law. That campaign has cost £3·5 million. We have heard reference to the poster campaign—"Cigarettes cannot be sold to under-16s. Don't send your kids to buy your cigarettes." What more can the industry do to point out to retailers the necessity to obey the law in that regard?
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will confirm that the industry has been most helpful in doing what it can to make sure that retailers obey the law and that, as far as possible, young people under 16 are not able to buy cigarettes. That campaign must demonstrate that the industry is aware of the problem, that it is not against more effective law enforcement, but that it is against the introduction of anti-smoking legislation under a different guise.
Much of what is contained in the Bill is already an offence under existing legislation. For example, clause 2 states that it shall be an offence to sell cigarettes from a vending machine to someone under the age of 16. That is already an offence. Most such machines are on licensed premises or are under the direct control of the vendor. Presumably the sponsors feel that there is a danger of easy access to such machines by young children. That may be the case from time to time. By and large, cigarette machines are so valuable and so full of cigarettes and cash that it is made absolutely sure that they are under the direct eye of the vendor. Retailers' biggest problem with cigarette machines is theft. They will not be uncaring about whether people under the age of 16 have unlawful access to them. If there are any that are not properly supervised, the law already states that the local authority can bring the vendor to court and order the removal of the machines. Again, it is a matter of enforcement rather than a question whether the law is adequate.
Clause 5 states:
No advertisement for tobacco or for any tobacco sponsored event shall be displayed…within any premises…in such a way as to allow the advertisement to be visible from the exterior of the premises; or…on the exterior… or within the boundaries, of any such premises".
That is already strictly controlled, on a voluntary basis, by the industry. I had hoped that the sponsors of the Bill and those who briefed them would acknowledge that.
I part company with some hon. Members who have spoken about tobacco advertising. I do not believe that tobacco advertising has any significant effect on inducing children to smoke. They will not start smoking because tobacco advertising companies sponsor a pop concert or a sporting event. Tobacco advertising is not intended to encourage youngsters to smoke; it is intended to persuade adult smokers to use one brand rather than another.
A report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys published only last year said that, while awareness of cigarette advertising is associated with a slightly increased likelihood of starting to smoke in the future, the effect is small in comparison with some of the other influences on children, such as the example set by parents and other children.
I have no quarrel with the basic objection to children under 16 smoking. It has always been an adult habit and


I hope that it will always remain so. My knowledge of the tobacco industry leads me to believe that that is also its hope. It is the underlying hostility to smoking in general to which I take objection. I respect people's wishes and views, even though I disagree with them. I also object to the intemperate language about people who smoke and the lack of consultation with the industry on how the law should be best enforced. Those are some of my reservations about the Bill.

Mr. Roger Sims: The House will not be surprised to see my name as a sponsor of the Bill. It will be well aware that for some years I have been chairman of the all-party ASH group. In fact, I relinquished that office only a few days ago, when I passed the torch to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos). Those hon. Members who heard his speech will know that that torch is in good hands.
I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) about the tobacco industry's view of its campaign, which I acknowledge, to persuade retailers to obey the law. If it is anxious that the law should be upheld, I do not understand why it objects to the Bill, the whole purpose of which is to ensure that the law is properly and adequately enforced.
Until about an hour ago, I thought that the debate had been characterised by balanced and well-informed speeches, but I had to alter my view after I had heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). For a start, she might read the Bill and see what is in it, rather than simply tell us what she thinks is in it. It is a great pity that she appeared to go out of her way to misrepresent the aims, objectives and background of and support enjoyed by Parents Against Tobacco. I also regret her comments about ASH. She misrepresented the views and backgrounds of the two organisations and it seems that she is literally ignorant of them. Indeed, it seems that she was prepared to admit that ignorance. She does not know what their backgrounds are, who supports them and the nature of their aims. Apparently she does not want to know. It is sad that any Member of this place should take that stance.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sims: No. I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because I intend to speak for only a few more minutes. I have been asked to be brief. I am sorry. My hon. Friend said her piece with some vigour and at some length.
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on introducing the Bill. He is a man of wide interests and is no stranger to controversy. Having won first place in the ballot, he could have adopted one of a number of issues. I am especially pleased that he decided to promote this Bill. I join others in congratulating PAT and its director, Jane Dunmore, on the responsible, moderate and effective campaign that they have waged. PAT has achieved its first object in securing first place in the ballot through the hon. Member for Warley, East. I hope that it will achieve its second object, which is to make the Bill an Act.
My position on tobacco is well known. I start with the fact—it is well established, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay may say—that it is literally a deadly product. Various figures have been quoted and I shall not

repeat them. I merely invite the House to remember that during today about 300 people will probably die prematurely through smoking-related diseases.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of the advice of the Government's chief medical officer who has said that tobacco is the greatest cause of avoidable death. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) sought to draw a distinction between tobacco and heart disease as potential causes of death. The House may wish to know that the Government accept the advice of the Royal College of Physicians that smoking causes roughly 20 per cent. of all deaths that are ultimately recorded as being caused by heart disease.

Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend has made a brief but helpful contribution to the debate. The facts and figures to which he referred could not have come from a better source.
If tobacco had only just been discovered, it would never be allowed on the market. We must be realistic, however, and accept that it exists. I believe that it is the Government's duty to persuade smokers to give up the habit and to dissuade others from starting to smoke. There are a number of ways of doing that and some of them have been discussed today.
People such as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will argue that I and others are trying to impose restrictions on freedom. She argues that individuals should be free to make their own judgments. That is not an argument which I accept. I believe that my hon. Friend and others would find themselves on different ground if they pursued their argument and extended it to drugs and the ingredients of foodstuffs. If they are making a fair comment in respect of adults, that cannot be accepted when it comes to children. Surely it is the duty of us all to protect children's health. The Bill would be an effective means of doing that.
I hope that we shall have a worthwhile series of debates in Committee. I am pleased that there is good will on the part of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench and the hon. Member for Warley, East and a willingness to give and take. I am sure that at the end of the day we shall have an effective and workable Act. I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House unduly. I wish to say in a short speech that I am opposed to the Bill in principle as well as in detail.
I acknowledge the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that the Bill might proceed in Committee, when we can discuss a number of issues with which I am concerned.
I am against the Bill in principle because I believe it to be unnecessary. I agree that children under the age of 16 years should not and must not smoke. It is illegal for such children to smoke. Therefore, we should be concerned about the enforcement of existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has already pointed out that if something is illegal by virtue of existing legislation passed by the House, but the law is still being broken, we should either consider the enforceability of that law or the need to increase penalties


for breaking that law. Certainly the penalties for selling cigarettes to children under 16 would be increased in the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister has said that they were due to increase anyway as a result of the Criminal Justice Bill now before the House.
If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee on the Bill I shall outline many of the reasons behind my detailed opposition to it—they are similar to those outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister. I share his concern about local authorities acting as policemen because those authorities are already complaining enough about the burdens imposed upon them by the House. It is clear that local authorities would have to receive vastly increased resources to police the Bill. New section 7(1H) of the 1933 Act states that:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to publish an annual report".
New section 7 (1I) states:
In this section—local authority' means … a county, district …'
I have a county council and a district council. Does the Bill mean that both authorities would have a duty to police the hapless retailer? That is a good Committee point, which I shall not pursue further. I am also concerned, however, about vending machines and in Committee I would support any amendment that my hon. Friend the Minister might table.
My other major concern relates to clause 5 and tobacco advertisements. I find it incredible that an Act of Parliament would seek to ban the type of illuminated signs provided by tobacco companies that one often sees on the exterior of tobacconists or newsagents. It is a ridiculous idea. If my hon. Friend the Minister does not table an amendment to delete clause 5(1)(a) and (b) I shall certainly do so.
There are a number of detailed reasons why I should seek to amend the Bill in Committee, but, if I had my way, the Bill would not pass into law.

Mr. Tim Janman: I shall detain the House for five to 10 minutes only. I welcome the initiative behind the Bill to try to combat the serious problem of the illegal sale of cigarettes to people under 16.
We can all think back to our teenage years when our parents tried to ensure that we did not smoke—rightly so. They would have been extremely concerned about people selling cigarettes to us if we had been foolish enough to attempt to buy them, given that that is against the law. There is a great deal of support throughout the country for addressing that problem. In that sense, I support the objective behind the Bill.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Minister, I also support the idea of increasing the maximum fine for selling cigarettes to people under 16. If a newsagent does not sell such cigarettes illegally he will not incur a fine. I understand that the Bill will increase the fine from £400 to £2,000, but that represents an increase in the maximum fine. Presumably the courts would have the flexibility to apply the maximum fine to someone who was a repeat offender. However, to increase the fine incurred by a newsagent or anyone else who sold cigarettes to people under 16 does not necessarily require a new Bill. That could easily be

catered for in the Criminal Justice Bill—I am a member of the Standing Committee considering that—and would not necessarily mean a new Bill.
The newsagents who knowingly break the law are probably in a minority. However, the Bill goes over the top. I certainly could not support it on Second Reading in its current form and I should want major amendments in Committee in order to support it on Third Reading.
The first aspect with which I shall deal is vending machines. We should remember that cigarettes are a legal product. They are legally available for adults in a free society. It is clear from the way in which the Bill is worded that the real intent is not merely to try to safeguard those under 16 years of age, but to have a go at the tobacco industry and to try to reduce the availability of tobacco products. The Bill is a covert attempt to turn legality into quasi-legality. The way in which the Bill attempts to place unworkable and impractical responsibilities on people who happen to have vending machines on some part of their property is intolerable.
At the risk of causing a few smirks around the Chamber, this is like a Bill being presented to the House to make a local authority liable to court action if an under-16 went into a lavatory for which the authority had responsibility and bought condoms from a machine, given that it is illegal to have sexual intercourse under the age of 16. My objection to the Bill is that it seeks to do this for cigarettes. It is simply not acceptable and it would be unfair, unrealistic and unworkable if the Bill in its present form became law, because of its intentions on the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. I am saying this as a non-smoker, as an hon. Member with no constituency interest in employment in the tobacco industry and as an impartial and objective observer on whether this part of the Bill is workable and desirable.
Another part of the Bill that is intolerable is the attempt to place more prohibitions on advertising of tobacco products. In a free society there should not merely be freedom of speech for the individual, but freedom of commercial speech for those who wish to advertise products that are legally available to adults who wish to purchase them. It would be deceitful for me and for the House to enact the Bill unamended because we would considerably reduce the freedom of commercial speech regarding a product that is legal. Parliament has not in any way suggested that adults should not be allowed to purchase it.
If a product is legal, and therefore available for purchase, clearly people who wish to increase their market share of the product should be able to advertise it. Advertising, whether of a brand of cigarette or of a motor vehicle, does not do much to alter total market size. Clearly, the total market for cigarettes is on the decrease and it will probably continue to decline due to a change in the public's attitude towards smoking for many reasons. Advertising enables producers to try to grab a bigger market share of the total market place. Because Vauxhall has an especially good advert for the Astra on television does not mean that more people will buy motor cars. It is more likely to mean that more people will buy Astras and fewer people will buy Escorts or Renaults.
To return to vending machines, one has to consider the practicalities of enforcing the provisions of the Bill, which provides that newsagents who sell products to people under I 6—magazines, newspapers and sweets among others—would have perpetually to ensure that those


children, who have a perfect right to be in the shop, do not nip over to a vending machine while they are serving someone at the counter, and take out a product that they may not necessarily be intending to use but may be buying for their parents, or for a brother or sister. That is intolerable, as is the attack on the freedom of commercial speech and advertising, which is paranoid and spurious. I do not think that it would have much effect on the extent to which the under-16s smoke or the extent to which smoking materials are sold to them.
It is worth noting that the industry itself has spent £3·5 million over the past four years urging proprietors not to sell cigarettes to under-16s. The industry does not take the problem lightly and I do not feel that the Bill in its present form constitutes a just reward for its genuine attempts to solve that problem.
I do not intend to oppose the Bill on Second Reading; nor do I intend to speak for much longer. If, however, the Bill is not substantially altered in Committee and if its attitudes towards vending machines, the freedom of commercial advertising and the inflicting of unworkable and unrealistic duties on local authorities are not subjected to the same process I shall certainly not be able to support it on Third Reading.
The Bill addresses a problem, but it tends to blow up that problem out of all proportion. Its proposals are, as I said, neither realistic nor practicable and tread on the toes of what I consider important principles in a free society. We are all concerned about the issues with which it deals—I know that many of my constituents are—but it is badly thought out and shows no sense of proportion in regard to either the problem or the solutions that we must find if we are able to reduce it substantially over the coming decade.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: The purpose of this modest though important Bill is to replace the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 with a modern set of powers. They will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to implement the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials —something which his present powers will not allow him to do in full.
Well over 500,000 packages of radioactive material are transported by road in Britain each year. The Bill seeks to regulate the conditions under which these packages are moved about. Most of them are transported to hospitals, others go to industry and a few of the larger shipments are sent by road to fuel nuclear reactors.
The IAEA is a specialist agency of the United Nations in Vienna and advises on all aspects of the civil nuclear industry. The IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material set out minimum standards for its transport by road. They also set out the necessary testing procedures and labelling requirements.
The regulations were last revised in 1985. All member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency are under an obligation to implement the regulations, by way of domestic legislation, as soon as possible. The deadline set was 1990. Britain failed to meet that deadline. My Bill puts that right. I commend it to the House.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on securing a Second Reading of the Bill and I express my full support for his efforts. The Bill intends simply to bring up to date my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport's powers to make regulations governing the transport of radioactive material by road and his ability to enforce the regulations. As my hon. Friend has already said, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations as a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency to—

Ms. Joan Walley: For the sake of the record and given the short time available for the debate, may I say that the Opposition support the main thrust of the Bill. We should have liked to raise a number of issues today. If, however, the Bill is given a Second Reading and is considered in Committee, we shall raise our concerns there.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington joins me in thanking the hon. Lady for her very encouraging comments.
The Bill is intended to cover only road transport. Provisions already exist in other legislation that allow the Secretary of State to control the transport of radioactive material by rail, air and sea. These provisions are specific to the mode of transport and therefore cannot be used for regulating road transport.
At present, the transport by road of radioactive material is controlled by regulations made under


provisions contained in the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. These provisions have become outdated in the modern world, where the use of radioactive materials for medical and industrial purposes far exceeds those originally envisaged when the Act was passed in 1948. It is essential that the Secretary of State has sufficient powers available to him to control the traffic in radioactive material. The Bill will provide those powers. I ask the House to support the Bill and give it a Second Reading.
The House will recall that when the Bill was before the House during the last Session it did not get through because of a technical hitch at a very late stage, even though it enjoyed the support of most hon. Members. One of the issues raised during its Committee stage last Session was whether the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. It does now apply to Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Objection cannot be taken at this stage.

Mr. Winnick: The Bill would ensure that advertisements for employment cannot specify age. To discriminate on the ground of age is as wrong as discrimination on any other grounds.
I do not see that this modest Bill should be opposed by the Government—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on 1 March.

Human Rights Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. David Winnick: Now, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman moving the Second Reading on behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?

Mr. Winnick: I am, Sir.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till 25 January.

Licensing Reform Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till 1 February.

Declaration of War (Requirement for Parliamentary Approval) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 21st January, the Motions in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to Health and to Social Security may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith successively the Question on the said Motion, or Motion as amended, and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other Motion, which may then be made, and of any Amendments thereto which may have been selected by him, which may then be moved; and, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each such Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd January, the Motions in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to European Standing Committees and to European Community Documents may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have


been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith successively the Question on the said Motion, or Motion as amended, and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other Motion, which may then be made, and of any Amendments thereto which may have been selected by him, which may then be moved —[Mr. Chapman.]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 14 (Exempted business) and 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)), Mr. Speaker shall, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Housing (Scotland), if those proceedings have not been previously disposed of, put the Question already proposed from the Chair; and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other such Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Neil Kinnock, which may then be moved; and proceedings on the said Motions may continue after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At some stage, may we be given some advice on the procedure at 2.30 pm on a Friday? I had a minute or two —I am not complaining about that as I was 15th in the private Member's ballot—but it is unfortunate that when a Whip, carrying out his duty, shouts "Object" it means, in effect, that I do not have the opportunity to advance a case for my Bill. Surely a procedure could be considered —[Interruption.] I do not know what all this muttering is about. Even if hon. Members disagree with me, the Bill is worthy of debate. Under the procedure that we have had for years, when a Whip shouts "Object" the House is denied the opportunity of discussing the merits of a Bill. That is unfair.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?

Mr. Arnold: Yes. Is not it a fact that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) talked out his Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is the first point. The hon. Gentleman talked out the Bill. We have discussed the 2.30 pm procedure many times in previous Sessions. We are using a well-established procedure. An objection at 2.30 pm does not necessarily mean an objection to the principle of the Bill but an objection to the Bill going through on the nod without debate. As has been said from the Chair on many occasions, if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the procedure, he can, yet again, ask the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter.

Audit Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In spite of the momentous events taking place elsewhere, I am pleased to move this debate on extending the role of the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission is now nearly eight years old. It is one of the most important and effective innovations that we have introduced into the machinery of government. Its success and usefulness is underlined by the fact that even the Labour party acknowledges its value.
Political debate frequently centres on how much money is spent on our public services, but insufficient attention is paid to value-for-money considerations. In many areas of public expenditure, we must focus greater attention on the effectiveness of public spending. Input is extremely important; output is vital. The Audit Commission addresses exactly that point. It is the enemy of waste and inefficiency and the taxpayers' best friend.
The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to place on record the great value that has been derived already from the Audit Commission's work, particularly in its value-for-money studies. If my hon. Friend the Minister takes the same view as I do about that, my second aim today is to press him to explore other aspects where the skills and efforts of the Audit Commission may usefully be deployed. I should also like the House to recognise the skill that has been shown and the success that has been achieved by the current controller of the Audit Commission, Howard Davies, and his predecessor, John Banham.
The Audit Commission should not be seen in any negative or cost-cutting sense. As the commission said, value for money is not simply a matter of economy, of cutting either the quality or the scale of the services provided. Value-for-money opportunities identified can either improve existing services or channel additional funds to other worthwhile policy objectives. It is important to note that in the past the commission criticised central Government where some national policies made it difficult for local authorities to manage their affairs efficiently. That was why some of my hon. Friends and I fought so hard during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill last year to allow the commission to comment on the effect that ministerial directives on health could have throughout the health service. It must be said that the Department of Health did not at the time regard this as high a priority as my hon. Friends and I did, and we were pleased when my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State accepted our argument on Report.
I should like particularly to draw the attention of the House to the commission's report last October on day care surgery. That report demonstrated that waiting lists could be cut by one third through more efficient use of day surgery. How did it reach that excellent and helpful conclusion? It certainly was not armchair guesswork or political fantasy. The Audit Commission focused on a basket of 20 common operations which account for about 30 per cent. of all surgery. If all district health authorities used day care treatment to the same extent as the 25 per cent. that use it most, an additional 186,000 patients could


be treated in England and Wales every year at no extra cost. Many other operations are suitable for day care treatment, offering the potential for an estimated 300,000 additional places per year. This is no dry analysis. It means that an increase in activity of this sort could have a significant impact on waiting times for all types of surgery, thus helping many of our constituents who are kept waiting too long for the health care that they need.
It is also worth mentioning the report entitled "Making a Reality of Community Care". That particularly important report made a valuable contribution—indeed, an essential one—to the work that Sir Roy Griffiths carried out on care in the community. He cited that work many times in his report on this subject.
However, it is in the area of local government that the Audit Commission has achieved most. One statistic suffices to demonstrate that point. It is interesting to note that in 1988 the commission reported that £750 million of savings had been identified, of which just under a third had been realised. By March 1990, the saving identified had reached £1,350 million and over £670 million had been achieved.
One of the commission's best reports entitled "Managing Social Services for the Elderly More Effectively" demonstrated clearly that the work undertaken was not about cost cutting but about ensuring that the right people received the right service. It demonstrated that there was a critical need for efficient management systems if clients were to be properly looked after. The report addressed itself to the elected members of a local authority to ensure that they had the right tools and benchmarks against which to judge and assess the performance of their officers. The report did a great deal to promote efficiency and effectiveness in local government. Indeed, I am proud that my local authority, Gedling, regularly receives warm praise from the Audit Commission. This is a credit to the leader of the council, Robert Baird-Parker, and his colleagues and to the chief executive, Bill Brown, and his officers and staff.
More recently, the Audit Commission produced a most helpful report on the cost of absence through sickness to the local authorities. That report deserves far more prominence than it has received so far; what it showed was nothing short of a thorough-going scandal in local government. Absence through sickness in the London boroughs was twice the CBI's national average and these figures, bad as they are, were bolstered by generous terms and conditions of employment.
Before the Audit Commission started its investigation, many authorities had no idea of their sickness levels. Lambeth council was so appalled when it learned from the Audit Commission of its figure that it changed its system and introduced a number of new measures, which promptly caused a strike. It emerged that Brent was losing £8 million a year through sickness.
This is the measure of the value of the survey. If London boroughs controlled their absence through sickness at the level of the national average, the community charge in London would be £25 a head lower. It is now up to local government to benefit those whom it represents by taking action as a result of the Audit Commission's work.
I shall mention several areas in which I want the work of the Audit Commission to be extended or deployed and in which I believe that better value for money, efficiency and effectiveness could be achieved if it were. The first is the police. We have increased funding for the police enormously in recent years and the police have become more efficient. That is true of nowhere more than Nottinghamshire, where we have an excellent force under the leadership of Dan Crompton. However, there are legitimate doubts about how effectively the police use the resources more generally.
A recent Audit Commission report, entitled "Improving the Performance of the Finger Print Service", demonstrated a huge variety in the cost of running different finger printing bureaux, sometimes varying by a factor of six. The report demonstrates the wide variations in effectiveness in terms of convictions secured through finger print evidence. It varies from 75 convictions per officer down to only four per officer per year. That is a staggering difference by any yardstick.
Although the Audit Commission has power to look at provincial forces, it is not allowed to look at the Metropolitan police. Why not? Are we saying that the Audit Commission's disciplines are necessary for the provincial police, but not for the Met? I think not. The Home Secretary should open up the Met to the Audit Commission's scrutiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that the Met is different from provincial police forces because it is not under local control and, therefore, does not come within the powers of scrutiny of the Audit Commission. That point was dispensed with last year when its powers were extended into the national health service. Those powers can and should be extended elsewhere.
Last month, the commission produced another worthwhile report on the police which showed major weaknesses in police monitoring of their own performance. The report, entitled "Effective Policing—Performance Review in Police Forces", concluded that definitions of good policing are not sufficiently backed by an assessment of police performance. It also recommended that police authorities and chief constables should develop a national framework to allow comparisons between forces. The measurement of police performance is no easy matter, but there can be no excuse for failing to make the attempt. The report goes on to recommend a better system of monitoring clear-up rates—an approach which could allow a far closer analysis of the methods used to solve crimes and their progress through the judicial system.
Let us consider magistrates courts. The efficiency unit scrutiny of magistrates courts identified, among other things, an audit gap—no one actually looked at them to see how well or badly they used their funds. Whatever is decided by the Government about magistrates courts and whether they become a "next steps" agency as suggested by the efficiency unit or not, they would benefit from the Audit Commission's attentions. Indeed, I believe that some local authorities have asked that the Audit Commission do just that. But as yet it is not empowered to do so. There is considerable public concern about the speed and efficiency of our courts and the police are concerned about that, too. We need to consider the location of the courts and the costs associated with that. If the Audit Commission deploys its skills on the magistrates courts, we shall, I suspect, save a fortune.
It is the declared intention of the Government that the housing associations should take a greater role in providing public housing. However, it is obvious that some provide this service far more effectively and efficiently than others. I should like the Audit Commisison to deploy its skills to enable the public and Parliament to see clearly what best practice in our housing associations is and how near to providing best value for money the housing associations that, for example, serve my constituents, come to achieving that aim. We need a proper, comparative, intrusive audit of the housing associations to ensure that they are spending the vast sums of public money as effectively as possible, not least because, at the moment, the same body that funds them audits them. That is not in anyone's interest and means that there is no independent scrutiny. There are many other obvious sectors, such as universities, where perennial financial difficulties need closer public scrutiny.
So far, about 50 schools have decided to opt out of local education Authority control. I believe that there will, and should, be many more. Schools are better placed than local education authorities to decide how to spend their budgets in the best interests of the children they are educating. In due course, we should let the Audit Commission take a look at some of the new management and educational ideas implemented by opt-out schools. I suspect that those schools will be well managed and run and there may be valuable lessons for the LEAs to learn from them for schools that have decided not to opt out. The Audit Commission is the right organisation to assess and promote the lessons learnt.
I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that he is receptive to the sort of ideas that I have outlined. It was not a long list and was far from comprehensive. Will he tell the House that he supports such ideas and encourage the Audit Commission to pursue and extend its excellent work in the directions that I have described? I hope that he will. The Audit Commission has a valuable role to play in securing better value for money in major sectors of public spending. Let the Minister make clear that he intends actively to encourage it in the extension of its existing operations.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for initiating this debate on the Audit Commission or, to give the commission its full title, the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. I emphasise the full title because it underlines the remarks of my hon. Friend. Gedling is fortunate to have my hon. Friend as its Member of Parliament and my hon. Friend is fortunate to have, in Gedling borough council, a well-run local authority. I have no difficulty—indeed, I am delighted to join him—in thanking and congratulating the comptroller of the Audit Commission, Howard Davies, and his predecessor, John Banham.
The Audit Commission has a long history—longer than most people realise—of first-class work. The origin of the Audit Commission lies in the Poor Law (Amendment) Act 1844, which established a system for auditing poor law expenditure and thus created the office of district auditor. In the second half of the 19th century new types of local

authority organisations were created and their accounts were gradually made subject to district audit as their functions increased. Some parts of the accounts of boroughs and county boroughs were subject to elective audit: in 1933 those authorities were given the right to appoint either the district auditor or other qualified auditors. It was not until the Local Government Act 1972 that a common system of audit was put in place across all local authorities.
The 1972 Act introduced a right for each local authority to choose whether its accounts should be audited by a private firm of accountants—subject to ministerial approval—or by the district auditors.
In its first special report for 1980-81 the Public Accounts Committee recommended setting up a National Audit Office in which the district audit service and the Exchequer and Audit Department would be amalgamated under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Government rejected that recommendation as inconsistent with the constitutional position of local authorities, but accepted the need for improvement in the arrangements for local authority audit and for greater attention to value-for-money work. Value for money is important and often misunderstood. Value for money implies and means "value for people". The better the value for money that local authorities and central Government can achieve, the better the value for the people they are serving. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, the Audit Commission's statutory responsibility, including helping local authorities achieve better value for money, was an innovative measure which has been of great significance in improving the performance of local authorities for the benefit of their local public.
The most recent development in the role of the Audit Commission was the extension of its remit to cover health service organisations, brought about under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Although the Government could not agree completely with the full force of the initial suggestions he supported, there was no doubt that the revision, which was fully included in the Act with his support, was most helpful. It allows the Audit Commission to set out clearly the national framework within which the NHS operates as it undertakes its value-for-money studies under section 26 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the work undertaken by the commission on day surgery in the national health service. That was the first report that it published on NHS matters, although this week it has been joined by further work on pathology services. He is right to congratulate the commission on pursuing the prospect for further value-for-money opportunities in those areas and we look forward to the results of the local audits now being undertaken which will establish what can be done in each local area to contribute to cost-improvement programmes, and what the scope for development nationally is likely to be.
I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the importance of the Audit Commission report "Making A Reality of Community Care". Sir Roy Griffiths's report "Community Care: Agenda for Action" contained proposals largely accepted by this Government in formulating the community care policy outlined in the


White Paper "Caring for People". Indeed, Sir Roy Griffiths acknowledged the Audit Commission report as containing
the essential facts on which this review is based".
My hon. Friend has rightly emphasised the value-for-money work undertaken by the Audit Commission, but that is only one part of its responsibilities. It is worth reminding ourselves also that much of the Audit Commission's work is performed or given effect by the auditor appointed to each body.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point which bears underlining. When the Audit Commission commissions a report it does not take on the staff itself. It employs third parties and other bodies to carry out that work. I believe that that is one of the most cost-effective ways of achieving the result that we all seek.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. The Audit Commission appoints auditors. It also prepares and keeps under review a code of audit practice and it prescribes the scale of audit fees. It can also direct an extraordinary audit in appropriate circumstances.
The main statutory responsibilities and powers of the auditors are to check that the authority's accounts have been prepared in accordance with statutes and regulations in force, and that proper practices have been observed; to satisfy themselves that the authority has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources; and to comply with the code of audit practice.
I had the duty of moving the adoption of the code when it was considered by the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 21 November last. That was the Audit Commission's code and it duly met with approval. It was noteworthy that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) supported the Audit Commission's role and the auditors whom it appoints. He said:
There has been no conflict between the Government and the Opposition about the role of the audit service. There is no contention between us… It has never been an issue between the Government and ourselves that the audit service is a vital part of the propriety that we expect from local government".
The hon. Member for Brightside went on to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling did, one aspect of the future role of the Audit Commission. The hon. Member for Brightside said that he believed that
quality, efficiency and effectiveness should replace economy, efficiency and effectiveness; as quality rather than cheapness should be the benchmark by which we judge what we are getting for our money."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21 November 1990; c. 6–7.]
The same idea of seeking quality was made one of the themes of a lecture that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) gave on 2 July 1990 as the second in the series of lectures on management of public services. He said:
Quality cannot be had on the cheap. That we need a sustained period of more effective financial investment in our public services and the people employed therein is self evident. Recognising that cash will always be limited we accept the essential drive for greater financial rigour and regard that rather than cheapness for its own sake as a far better approach. If quality is our goal then efficiency is essential.

I do not disagree with the intention behind those remarks, but I believe that quality can be achieved and is being achieved within the present framework. The code of audit practice is perfectly clear about that. It states:
It is not the auditor's function to question policy. There is, however, a responsibility, particularly in the audit of local authorities, to consider the effects of policy and to examine the arrangements by which policy decisions are reached".
My interpretation of the guidelines, which I was pleased to bring before the Committee, is that a local authority may quite properly decide what levels or quality of service to provide, but it is up to the auditor to ensure that the decision was taken in full knowledge of the financial and other consequences. I do not see that the role of the Audit Commission and the auditors that it appoints needs to be widened by legislative means. The ideas of my hon. Friend and the two hon. Members whom I have quoted can be accommodated in the present framework and I think that such ideas on quality are already being accommodated. My hon. Friend referred to the report entitled "Managing Social Services for the Elderly More Effectively" as a report which shows how a chosen level of service can be targeted to deliver the right service to the right people.
I shall now say a word about evenness and quality across the country and the spread of best practice. The quality exchange is an Audit Commission initiative to establish voluntary "comparison levels" for local authorities. The commission's first reports, which covered the seven services of refuse collection, waste disposal, highway maintenance, street cleaning, verge cutting, street lighting and gully cleaning, showed that many councils were already doing a lot to monitor and promote service quality. Nearly 200 local authorities participated in the survey. The Audit Commission's report on it highlighted the importance of four factors—management arrangements, specifications, quality control and customer satisfaction.
Some of the commission's findings may come as no surprise—many local authorities could do much more to keep their tenants' rent arrears under control, for example. Nevertheless, those points need to be made and I am sure that the objective and practical advice offered by the commission is of help to many authorities.
The Audit Commission's recent report on managing sickness absence, to which my hon. Friend referred, revealed the alarming statistics of sickness absence in certain local authorities in London. The report stated that if the six authorities with the worst sickness record in London could reduce levels of such absence to the CBI average for industry, they could save as much as £26 million, or £27 per head on the community charge. The loss to other authorities through that source is not, thankfully, quite as great, but the problem is severe and cannot be measured in financial terms alone. High levels of sickness absence can also lead to poorer services and breakdowns in management systems.
On the police aspects of the commission's work, in which, of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the major Government interest, the commission's responsibilities for appointing auditors for local authorities extend to provincial police authorities and the commission is as concerned with recommending ways of improving the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of police forces as any of the other organisations. The remit does not extend to the Metropolitan police, because they are subject to audit by the National Audit Office.
In preparation for local audits of police forces, the commission has been conducting a special study based on fieldwork in several provincial forces. That study began three years ago and the commission has so far published eight papers, to some of which my hon. Friend has referred. I understand that the work continues and that a further two papers, one on management structure and resource allocation in provincial police forces and the other on devolved financial management, are due for publication within the next few months. The commission has also published two audit guides for use by the auditors whom it appoints.
Most of the recommendations are properly the province of chief constables and their police authorities, but the commission's work in this matter is, of course, of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend suggests that the Home Secretary should open up the Met to the commission's scrutiny. The Met is different from provincial forces because the Home Secretary, rather than a local authority, is its police authority. Its auditing arrangements are different, too, being linked to those for central Government, with the National Audit Office appointing external auditors and publishing value-for-money reports.
Although I have explained the structural position, it is equally clear that the Metropolitan police benefit from the Audit Commission inquiries into provincial forces. The Metropolitan police force is not ignored, nor does it ignore the work of the Audit Commission.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Minister has outlined the current structural position. As he will know, many hon. Members feel that the skills of the Audit Commission, which are not the same as those of the National Audit Office, are well deployed on all other provincial forces and would benefit the Met if they were deployed in there. My hon. Friend cannot give me a full answer today, but I hope that he and his colleagues in government will keep that point under active consideration because much public money would be saved if the Audit Commission were deployed in the Met.

Mr. Key: I undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The scrutiny into the magistrates courts service, published in 1989, did point to weaknesses in the current arrangements for audit of expenditure on magistrates courts. Detailed consultation has taken place with the service and other interested parties on the main scrutiny

proposal on the reorganisation of the service. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now considering the results of the consultation and those of a recent costing exercise carried out by consultants.
My hon. Friend suggested also that the Audit Commission might extend its best practice and value-for-money role into the world of subsidised rented housing run by housing associations. I share my hon. Friend's view that effective management and value for money in that area are very important.
Housing associations already manage more than half a million homes in England and the Government are channelling an increasing amount of new investment through them. However, I am not sure that this is an area where an additional input from the commission is needed, certainly at the present time when there are many other priorities for its attention. However, I shall bear that point seriously in mind.
I come now to grant-maintained schools. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has now approved, or is minded to approve, 59 applications for grant-maintained status. It is proving popular with parents. Many of the first grant-maintained schools have seen dramatic increases in applications. I am sure that local education authorities and others will have much to learn from the success of the grant-maintained schools sector. The Audit Commission does not have the rights of access to grant-maintained schools, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the sort of points that my hon. Friend has made.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the many aspects of the work of the Audit Commission, which, because of its great variety, impinges on the responsibilities of a number of Departments. He has also praised the excellence of that work and I am happy to concur with him. As I said, the history of the service is one of steady evolution, which leads me to think that we should allow the Audit Commission to expand into its new role in regard to the national health service before thrusting new burdens on it. My hon. Friend has presented many important ideas, which it may be correct to adopt. For the moment I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my colleagues. I intend actively to encourage the Audit Commission in its existing areas of operation, including the development of new ideas on standards and quality of service.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.